Talk:BMT Canarsie Line

Former stations

Stations when it was a steam line included the following:

• terminal at Denton Avenue (Schenck Street?) and 96th Street

Merge?

Should this article be merged into this article? Angrymansr (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion a while ago about this, where it was decided that they should be left separate: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 2#Various duplications. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMT Canarsie Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151104155926/http://www.earlpleasants.com/search_1.asp to http://www.earlpleasants.com/search_1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BMT Canarsie Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906012712/http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_REPORT_No._0045.pdf to http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_REPORT_No._0045.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821134622/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160725/bushwick/l-train-shutdown-heres-how-commute-between-brooklyn-manhattan to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160725/bushwick/l-train-shutdown-heres-how-commute-between-brooklyn-manhattan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments in regards to Good Article nomination

Here are some comments in regards to the Good Article nomination for this page:

• The History section is unbalanced in some places. There are 4 paragraphs about the line's automation and 6 paragraphs about the 14th Street Tunnel shutdown. As it is, the article would probably fail to meet GA criterion 3b.
• Meanwhile, there are barely two sentences about the start of construction. There is only one sentence about the history of the line between 1940 and 2000. This violates GA criterion 3a.
• The 14th Street Tunnel shutdown should probably be its own article, with a short summary here. ( Done by me. epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC))
• There are a few unsourced statements. And some of the sources are self-published content, like nycsubway.org or Trains Are Fun. This needs to be fixed under GA criterion 2b.

epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BMT Canarsie Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing is on time at the moment. I will let you know of start times. Lets get this review done before they close the tunnel! AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Concern

Hello @Happypillsjr:, I am concerned with this nomination as you have not fully been active in editing this page. It seems this page should have been nominated by @Epicgenius: or @Kew Gardens 613:. Looking at the revision history it seems you have never actually improved the page. Epic and Kew, what do you think of this nomination? I believe a nominator should be active in editing the page. It seems that if this article were to promote, Happy would take the credit for what Epic and Kew did. Happy any insight into why you never edited the page?. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am considering failing this. Happy has had a terrible history with GA reviews and an inadequate review on the only one he passed. Happy has Never edited this article and shows no dedication to completing the review. @Epicgenius:, @Kew Gardens 613: do you agree? AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I do think this page needs a lot of work. I'll add more comments later, but basically I had elaborated some concerns on the main talk page. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I agree. I don't think that this article is ready to be a GA yet. I would hesitate to nominate it. Before it is nominated, the history needs to be improved, and additional citations need to be added. Per, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." I think that the nominator should be active in editing the relevant page or similar articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikicheck

• No Copyvios
• References 1, 13, and 26 are dead.
• The links: Brooklyn and Rockaway Beach Railroad (redirect page), Canarsie Railroad (redirect page), and 14th Street Tunnel (redirect page) all link back to the article. The wikilinks are useless.

Issues

• A ton of Duplinks especially in the last section.

More TBD AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

@Happypillsjr: I am sorry to say that I am going to Early Fail this. You have never edited this page and show no dedication to improving it. The page also needs a ton of work: Additional citations and section cleanup. Sorry. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Claim of proposed closure in the 1980s

I have removed a line of text from the "Mid- to late 20th century" section, which was as follows:

By the 1980s, the Canarsie Line was proposed for closure, as it was dilapidated and only had a ridership of 40,000 a day.

I have done this for a few reasons: firstly, the source cited does not verify the claim presented here, or even mention that period of time at all. Secondly, this claim appears to originate from a speech given by the MTA chairman Joseph Lhota in 2012, but there are no historical primary sources to back this up. This article discusses the controversy [1] Ehburrus (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I too have not been able to find any contemporary sources that actually talk about this proposed closure. That is a red flag - if closure was indeed proposed, it should have been discussed in at least one contemporary source, and it likely would have been a controversial move discussed by multiple sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

References