Talk:Bx12 bus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 207th Street Crosstown 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:

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) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bx12 (New York City bus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll do my best reviewing this article over the next few days although its been request for a nomination for a while. So @Kingsif: I would need your help just in case.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (your ping didn't work because it needs to be signed when you add it) - I can help guide you through this again, but I don't know if the nominator will be very responsive at the moment. Pinging @Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius:, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I will try to be as responsive as I can be. Thanks. This one should not be too hard to do.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: Checking in on progress here, since it's been just over a week. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I should be able to deal with several of the issues shortly.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

So, Happypillsjr, questions for reviewing this. Start with illustration again, kind of subjective but visual:

  • There's a hatnote - is it appropriate?
  • Is the infobox suitable in general and for the specific kind of article (NY bus)?
Yes
  • Are the images appropriately licensed?
The images are self work, yes.
  • Are the images used well - do they illustrate something in the text or otherwise add to the article for a reader?
The images uses very well and it adds up in sections
  • Is the route map complete?
yes, I rode this bus a couple times.
  • Does the stops map work, is it clear?
The map work is clear.
  • Is the station table understandable?
Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I'll finish up the review below.

  • Lead good, some recent expansions fill it out to a fair length
  • Images good, though it does take a minute to work out the limits of the dark-colored stop map. I think it might work better if it's black-on-white, if possible?
  • Table clear, infobox fine
  • Sources are reliable and everything has an appropriate inline citation
  • Route description looks fine
  • Will pick back up on the other sections tomorrow Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • History:
    • Maybe move This was the last Union Railway franchise to be constructed to somewhere later, it's currently at the end of the paragraph about the plans for it (unless this is all there is on construction - it might need some tweaking to make that clear)
    • Corrected some typos, otherwise fine
  • Just to ask if there's no more coverage - any incidents or anything?

 On hold @Kew Gardens 613: Just a few things Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC) @Kingsif: Due to the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Sabbath on Saturday, I won't be editing from tonight until Saturday night at the earliest. I wanted to let you know to make sure that you know that I am still committed to addressing the aforementioned issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif and Happypillsjr: In Kew Gardens 613's absence, I can address any issues that can come up. Just ping me with any issues you find. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Those last few comments were all I found, if there's nothing else I'd be happy to pass this. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, thanks. I think these have all been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title[edit]

Kew Gardens 613 has twice now reverted moves that would bring this article in line with the Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION. It should not be a Good Article until it follows that policy. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, that is normally true, but this is not a subway article. The vast majority of NYC buses use the naming convention XX (New York City bus) where XX is the bus route, because there are other subjects with that name. This is because they all follow the convention of a single-letter prefix followed by a number, e.g. "B1", "M1", "Q1", or "S40", which is generally pretty common. I think this is the only page with a disambiguator that is non-ambiguous, out of over a hundred articles about NYC bus routes. For consistency with other pages, it might be preferable to keep the disambiguator for this page. epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is always true; the subway topic is just illustrative of the arguments that are going to come up here and the reasons why policy still wins over them. No, the consistency argument is incorrect; it was trotted out and rejected in the subway RfC too (and in every other topic group that mistakes disambiguating qualifiers for necessary parts of all titles). WP:PRECISION, WP:LOCALCONCENSUS apply here as well as the rest of the encyclopedia. But I guess we'll just have to have yet another RfC for each topic group that thinks the policies don't apply to it unless they agree first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JHunterJ: Yes, if you want to ram this through, you will need another RfC.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ramming-through of the incorrect title has already been done. The RfC would be to once again find that WP:PRECISION is indeed Wikipedia policy and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS still applies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRECISION says Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. This can be codified in an RFC that deals with the one or two articles that violate this precision criterion, which is not needed, or an RM, which is more appropriate. Furthermore, one can argue that "Bx12" is an insufficient title to identify the article, since it is only two letters and two numbers. Hence, a title like "Bx12 bus" or "Bx12 (New York City bus)" would be much better, and preferred. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I said the last time this was brought up, I would prefer "Bx12 bus" over "Bx12", if it came to that. I don't really care whether it has a disambiguator or not. As long as there is something in the page title that makes it clear that the Bx12 is a bus route, then the disambiguation isn't necessary anymore. However, I can see why the version with the qualifier "New York City bus" may be preferred. epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JHunterJ: Epicgenius stated my reasoning for reverting the moves. You knew, given the Subway RfC, that moves like this are contentious, and yet you did not bother to bring up your concern to the talk page before moving the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you knew, given the WP:PRECISION link, that there has been no discussion on the title and that the qualified title goes contrary to Wikipedia policy, and you have reverted two other users instead of bringing it up on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2020[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bx12 (New York City bus) → Bx12 bus – WP:PRECISION. there's no ambiguity for this title, and pursuing consistency in disambiguating phrases for the sake of consistency has been rejected by the community throughout various topic projects, most recently Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC. All the reasons there apply here too. Appending "bus" per eventual result of Talk:Bx15 bus#Requested move 11 April 2020 JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 19:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom, I see no reason for the disambiguation.– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As the nom says, no need to disambiguate. While the proposed title is concise, it is also descriptive. epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bx12_bus&oldid=1217761561"