Talk:Atlantic Terminal

Trains: Stations / in New York City Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Mid-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Above ground[edit]

Wasn't there an impressive above ground stone building in the middle 20th century, torn down for redevelopment that didn't happen? Jim.henderson 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link about it(http://arrts-arrchives.com/FAT1Rext.html). And if not, there are others connected. ---- DanTD 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flatbush Avenue (LIRR station) → Atlantic Terminal — As of the March 8 2010 schedule change (this Monday), "Atlantic Terminal" becomes the station's official name, as seen here. It's been used as a secondary name for some time, and is already a redirect. Propose switching the two. (The article text has already been changed to reflect the renaming.) oknazevad (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. There are numerous references to "Atlantic Terminal" in and out of the station, and it was bound to be the official name (it's one of the places I frequent). Tinlinkin (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very logical move. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the name changes, so should the article. Me Three (talk to me) 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per http://www.mta.info/lirr/html/lirrmap.htm --Nricardo (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Be bold and just do it already. There's no good logical reason to keep the article here. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but it needs to be done by an admin, as the redirect has more than just the creation of the redirect in it's edit history. oknazevad (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, while this may be the correct name, it could refer to any terminal along the Atlantic Coast to those outside of the New York Tri-State area. I recommend Atlantic Terminal (LIRR station). ----DanTD (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name one, please. I see no need to disambiguate it. --Nricardo (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nricardo is right, disambiguation is only used when there is need to make more specific the titles of multiple articles that would be exactly the same other wise. There is no other station with the exact name "Atlantic Terminal". Theoreticals, such as the non-existant "any terminal" you refer to are unneeded. Disambiguation is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I just wanted to be sure that nobody mistook it for Atlantic City Rail Terminal or vice versa. ----DanTD (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't have the same name, so disambiguation is not neccessary. oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Terminal → Atlantic Terminal (LIRR station) – I know I don't like the tags at the end of the station name usually, but in this case I think that due to having a shopping mall close by and being in the neighborhood that this is in, the article should be moved. This is a reason why I would want an article tag. Bob Mono (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is already a hat note to direct readers looking for the mall and the mall. There is no need for "preemptive" disambiguation. --Polaron | Talk 13:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Terminal → Atlantic Terminal (LIRR station) – All the other stations in the LIRR have the disambiguator "LIRR station" applied to them. Besides, it can be confused with Atlantic Terminal (shopping mall). The main reason for this, however, is because this is the only article about an exclusively-LIRR station that doesn't have "LIRR station" applied to it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The station is currently a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should it not be? --BDD (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be a primary topic, the existing "Atlantic Terminal" should link to a disambiguation page, as the shopping mall also qualifies to be a primary topic. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clear primary topic with no disambiguator needed. As an analogy, Grand Central Terminal is exclusively Metro-North, but it has no unneeded parenthetical disambiguator, as it is clearly the primary topic of the name. Same deal here. And there's the fact that US station naming conventions are currently undergoing discussion and revision, and it would have to be changed again anyway. oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Terminal isn't ambiguous; this station is. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The station is far more notable and widely referred to than the attached mall. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought the mall was equally famous. Guess not. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we don't need to disambiguationalize. Red Slash 21:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History chapter needed[edit]

This is one of those station articles that really needs a history chapter, more than others. I haven't started one up yet, but I just made a sandbox for one this afternoon. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Brooklyn train crash[edit]

Support split - The 2017 Brooklyn train crash is a rare case of overrunning a bumper into a room, resulted in 100 injuries, and should be made into its own article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - It is WAY too soon to know if it will meet WP:EVENT in terms of long-term significant coverage or lasting impacts. This is very different from the Hoboken crash in September being that it killed one person, severely damaged the terminal and cars, and led to service disruptions for several weeks. In this case, there was little damage to the station, all the injuries were minor, and there was little to no interruption to rail service. Honestly train overrunning a bumper is not that rare. A PATH did the same in May 2011, a train in Cleveland did that [1] recently and a train in India did that in 2015. Are we going to have articles on every single one of these incidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.76.99 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a significant number of injuries. Being reported in UK and the Netherlands as well as USA. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per IP 173, it is too soon. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe not, but it needs a much better name. Like January 2017 Brooklyn train crash? epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Would be unfortunate if, say, another train crashed in Brooklyn this year. Maybe best to rename that article. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge: 2017 Brooklyn train crash into Atlantic Terminal; dated: April 2017. Proposer's Rationale: Almost three months after the accident, it has not shown to have major lasting impact and has almost become forgotten. The critical details of this minor derailment are already in the terminal article anyway. -anon. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. It's a pretty meh either way. Replace with redirect to specific subsection works for me. JesseRafe (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Investigations take time, typically a year or so before a report it published. Merging the accident article into this article would mean that it would be dominated by the accident. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. While we don't know the final report yet, I don't think this article would be overwhelmed by a passage about the crash, because frankly we don't need that much detail about the crash on Wikipedia in general, and we don't need to merge in every detail from the standalone article. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I oppose the merger per Mjroots. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of Mjroot's argument was based around the fact that it was too soon to tell. He said that almost a year ago. You can probably prove or disprove his point by now. Either more coverage has arisen or it likely won't ever happen, at this point. It probably doesn't argue "time will tell" a year later though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting in a year old discussion about a merge that has already been carried out per that discussion is poor form. (Though the discussion should have been closed too). If you want to re-split the merged articles, please start a new discussion instead of commenting here. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]