User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2019/Jan

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have tried to deal with as many of the issues brought up in

–he has done extensive research in the field for decades, through experience, interviews with employees, by sifting through archives in person–he told me it was a lot harder pre-Internet, and by going through newspapers. His work is more extensive than the Pitanza book, and is used as a source for it, but is deemed OR, and unreliable. This might seem like a rant, but this is a fundamental problem with the GA and FA processes on Wikipedia, and unless I redo all the research done over decades by Bommer or publish his work in a book there is no way that article will ever become an FA.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I could use some advice concerning

) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: It's not a bother. I would say that per LEADCITE, citations are neither required nor disallowed in lead sections. As a rule of thumb, all info in the lead must be cited in the body as well. Then, a sentence in the lead would only need citations if a claim is likely to be heavily disputed, or if the fact is not generally known by the public. I also left comments on the nomination. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: The nomination has stalled once again. What do you suggest I do? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Try reviewing other people's nominations. If you support these nominations, ask the nominators if they could do a quid pro quo and review your nomination about the SIR. epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey just an fyi - I'm working on creating a map of the terminal; it really seems to need one in order for people to understand where things are. I'm just using the basic shapes from the official directory, with less focus on shops and more on different areas and other buildings. Will take a while though... ɱ (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Thanks for letting me know. Just out of curiosity, is it in SVG format? That will make it easier to edit later.

I'm also working on a railroad track map of my own, just about the switches in and around Grand Central, similar to the Penn Station article. I started it here. Not sure if it will be used in the article, though... epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I can try converting it to an svg once I'm done, but it might not work well; using Inkscape I've only ever successfully converted pretty simple logos from jpg/png to svg. I don't know how to start a map with svg either. I can probably create a very good one just as a jpg, and could provide the Photoshop file with layers and all to allow for easy editing. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I started thinking of a map again as I read the MTA installed two new elevators I think in the shuttle passage, not currently on the directory map... We can add them to ours, so long as we even want elevators on the map. Almost worth making one for an overview of rooms and one for the details. And I can't see us possibly making up maps for where the tennis court, offices, control and situation rooms, catwalks, M42, clock room, etc. are located. Wish I could see all of that too... ɱ (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I totally understand. It's OK if you can't or don't want to convert it into SVG format. The benefit to that format is that it doesn't become grainy if you zoom in, and if you use Inkscape, you can save the file as SVG. In fact, I almost exclusively create SVG files from Inkscape.

Also, while I personally think it would be good if you included elevators, it may be overkill if we're just using it on the wiki article. After all, that's what this is for. Better to just describe where the different rooms, public spaces, and platforms are. epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I can create a high-enough-quality jpg that it won't become grainy if you zoom in, unless you do excessively, like with this map. And okay, I think I'll focus more on the other details... ɱ (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Great map. When you have a chance, could you expand it to include the rest of the Park Avenue Tunnel? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might need to create a new map for the Park Avenue Tunnel. Otherwise the GCT map will get too big. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Details

I'm using a variety of maps, but mostly the two most-detailed/up-to-date: Google Maps and the MTA directory. I noticed some discrepancies between the two:

• The shuttle passage shops are probably more accurate in the Google version, spanning underneath Vanderbilt Avenue? The MTA version makes no sense, as Vanderbilt Avenue doesn't end there. This makes me wonder though, does the terminal have sloping floors, or are there stairs anywhere to the three right-side passageways? Because those passages lead right onto Lexington, so I'd assume if the left side is under Vanderbilt, the right side would normally be below-grade relative to Lexington...
• The Biltmore Room looks much more accurate in the Google version, though I'm not quite sure how to display it as it's almost certainly closed right now.
• The Graybar kiosks are in different places in the two maps, not sure which one's more accurate.
• The Google Map doesn't show any "Grand Hyatt Passage", which I think I've never seen and am not sure what it looks like or anything at all...

If you notice any other significant differences, please let me know! ɱ (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose this version is a little better at displaying the Biltmore Room, even if the newsstand is now gone. Weird how they changed that. ɱ (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Thanks. A few things I should mention:

• The shuttle passages are one level below grade, as is the entire Main Concourse. There are ramps from the street to the concourse, but the entrances at the Grand Hyatt and under the Park Avenue Viaduct are gradual ramps to the concourse, so you won’t notice. The shuttle passage is not under Vanderbilt Avenue.
• The Biltmore Room isn’t completely closed. A small section on the east side of the room is still open, allowing passengers from the westernmost tracks to access the Main Concourse. There are two flower booths.
• I don't know where the Graybar kiosks are. It looks like it extends from the northeast corner of the Main Concourse, but I've never had any reason to go to that part of Grand Central. Maybe that's because I always go to the Dining Concourse for breakfast, though.
• The "Grand Hyatt Passage" is not the name of the passage that links the Lexington Passage to the 42nd Street entrance of the Grand Hyatt. In fact, I'm not sure it's called anything at all. IIRC, it basically has two double-glass doors, one at each end. The middle of the passage contains an entrance to the Grand Hyatt.
• Also, you didn't mention this, but most of the seating area in the western half of the Dining Concourse is currently closed and is being converted to East Side Access escalator caverns. It's the space in this map between the western stairs and booths 89/90. The shops over there are still open. epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As for your first bullet - yes I remember the ramp at the shuttle entrance and Vanderbilt Hall entrance, sloping down to the below-grade Shuttle Passage, Main Concourse, Vanderbilt Hall, etc. Wouldn't that also mean that Grand Central Market, the Lexington Passage, and Graybar Passage are below-grade? Because I don't think they are - I remember stepping out of the market directly onto Lexington Avenue. Where is the incline then?

Also, if there is a ramp down to the shuttle passage, that would mean the passage is lower down than Vanderbilt Avenue; I'm pretty sure some of the shops extend underneath Vanderbilt Avenue, like it shows on Google... I think this image also confirms that.

Does the Biltmore Room then look like what you see open on the Directory? I can change it back to that, maybe with a little more clarity.

The "Grand Hyatt Passage" idea is something we can explore while we're there I guess. I think you're maybe right, there's just a door to a hall to the hotel lobby...

I'll grid off that dining concourse area for now then, thanks. ɱ (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: A few more replies:

• The Lexington Avenue entrances are at a lower elevation than the Vanderbilt Avenue entrances. It's a gradual slope, but the Vanderbilt Avenue side is one full level above Lexington Avenue. This can be seen at 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue, looking west. It's more noticeable at 45th and 46th Streets, where Park Avenue is a full story above Lexington Avenue. Further north, I think Lexington Avenue rises slightly, reaching to the level of Park Avenue by 57th Street. By the way, the main track level is lower than the Main Concourse, so it isn't directly below Park Avenue.
• Yes, some of the shops do extend under Vanderbilt.
• Kind of. The middle of the room and the whole west side is closed. The perimeter of the room around the east side is open. epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(←) Also, on a random note, do you want to add in the history draft that Michael Jordan's Steakhouse closed? see here. It had a long history and notability clearly, but adding this and Metrazur opens the doors to adding about every business ever open or closed in GCT. Maybe just list the notable ones? I also found out that there was a Kitty Kelly (shoe/women's fashion?) store near the shuttle ramp, and thus that ramp is/was known as the Kitty Kelly ramp, according to one NYT article and the MTA. Not great sourcing, and I dunno if this is still used/worth putting in the article... ɱ (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I guess we could add some sentences about a few notable stores - maybe one sentence per store. But I don't really want to add too much info about the shops if they are notable. If the businesses are notable individually, we can add the info to their respective wiki pages. epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me clean up this article? I think it is really important because it seems like everyone is running for this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Sure. I'll probably take a look when I get home tonight. epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

) 08:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! You too. I can't believe it's been five years already! Time flies by really quickly. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

http://carter.gamerspage.net/Grand_Central_Terminal/large-24.html Take a look! - ɱ (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like it's on the lower level where the loop used to be. I found a discussion thread from 14 years ago about this car. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

) 04:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The article

) 07:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The article George Washington Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Washington Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PointsofNoReturn -- PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Epicgenius - it's not too much a big deal, but can we please keep the citations in one style? I standardized them all earlier, and now it appears you're changing some. I order the parameters like MLA or Chicago would: Last name, first name, title, newspaper/website/work, publisher, url, date, accessdate. And I've been removing extra spaces there and in the refname area. Is that okay to stick with? I also think it displays more compact on desktops and laptops, with the url mostly on its own line, it takes up less room! Best, ɱ (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Here's what I usually use, and just copy and paste and add in the info:
<ref name="">{{cite web|last=|first=|title=|website=|publisher=|url=|date=|accessdate=April 29, 2024}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite news|last=|first=|title=|newspaper=|publisher=|url=|date=|accessdate=April 29, 2024}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite book|last=|first=|title=|publisher=|page=|url=|date=|accessdate=April 29, 2024|isbn=}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite journal|last=|first=|title=|journal=|publisher=|volume=|number=|page=|url=|date=|accessdate=April 29, 2024|isbn=}}</ref>

Is that okay as a standard for the main, art, and history articles? Any other thoughts? ɱ (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Yeah, I'm fine with that. Here's the thing, though - I don't actually change the field order on purpose; it's just automatically generated like that. I use Visual Editor, which rearranges the references without spaces, but with the fields in a different order. In fact I just copied the refs you wrote, tried out VE, and this is what happened to the references:

<ref name="">{{cite web|url=|title=|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=|accessdate=January 12, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite news|url=|title=|last=|first=|date=|newspaper=|accessdate=January 12, 2019|publisher=}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite book|url=|title=|last=|first=|date=|publisher=|isbn=|page=|accessdate=January 12, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=|title=|url=|journal=|publisher=|volume=|page=|isbn=|accessdate=January 12, 2019|number=}}</ref>

So basically the fields rearrange themselves. This is another tool I use. And this is the field order for a completed citation:

<ref name="">{{cite web | last= | first= | title= | website= | date= | url= | access-date=January 12, 2019}}</ref>

Anyway, you can rearrange the field order and remove whitespace from citations if you want. This script helps tidy the citations but it's not perfect. I don't think it's a big deal either way, since the citation shows up to the reader the same way regardless of how the fields are ordered. However, it's up to you if you want to rearrange the citation fields. I don't actively change the order of the fields. epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh, I was suspecting it might've been something automated. I guess I'll bring that up to the Visual Editor folks. And before we nominate this for GA, I'll sweep through to standardize all the citations. I know it doesn't show to readers, but FAs usually need good citation order and style and consistency, so this'll help. Also FYI - I added most of my photos from our trip! I still have a bunch more of little details, and most of the Grand Central North photos, but I added the most article-important ones. Take a look --ɱ (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: All right, I'll give the GCT images a look later. I think featured articles seek more consistency in what citation style and template is used, and not necessarily the order of fields in citation templates. For example, I don't know how the citation fields in Construction of Rockefeller Center are arranged, but I ensured each of them has consistency with the same basic data like ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but having the order the same and all the refs at the bottom makes it much easier to look over them and ensure consistency. I ran into that with my last FA, because even just me adding NYT refs I had added some as cite web, some cite news, some as "newspaper", some as "work", etc. ɱ (talk)

Yeah, that may be an issue. But it's nothing that can't be easily fixed, I guess... epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a goldmine for creating these maps: here. Means I'll be revising the current ones, and still working on the balcony level map. ɱ (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Glad to meet you yesterday. Since you couldn't make it earlier in the day, just letting you know that a picture you uploaded of WTC Cordlandt was included in the slideshow of photos of NY by NY wikiphotographers (it ran in the morning and during lunch). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I was glad to meet you too. Thanks for letting me know. Out of curiosity, do you know exactly which image they showed? epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This one. I just looked through some WikiNYC people's uploads, scanning for a variety of things (among them, good documentation of things that happened in NY in 2018, like the WTC Cortlandt opening :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Wow, that's nice. Thanks. Do you know if I missed any other good NY things that happened last year? No pressure, just curious epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Good NY things? As far as I'm concerned, it was all about the mandarin duck frenzy in Central Park. :) Not ashamed to say I went back to visit multiple times and indeed included a picture of it in the slideshow. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that... epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has looked at it, and I have made progress on some of their suggestions. One of them was that likewise, books and other multi-page sources are usually listed in a separate bibliography and cited short form inline. I have not used any citation format other than the normal one. Is he asking for Harvard referencing? In any case, how would I go about doing this. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@

harvnb}} or {{sfn}} are helpful when you need to cite many pages from the same source. There is a very helpful page at Template:Harvard citation documentation

.

So this would be how you use it: epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The sky is blue.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2005|p=IDK}}</ref>

The sky is blue.^[1]

or

The sky is blue.{{sfn|Smith|2005|p=IDK2}}

The sky is blue.^[2]

• Smith, John (2005). Smith's paper. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

New Technology Train (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gangway

New York City Subway rolling stock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gangway

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

) 01:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The article

) 04:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)

I nominated this a while back, but I am very concerned that a user with 67 edits, who has been editing since December 28 took it up and passed it without looking thoroughly at the article at all. Who should I go to at GA to get this fixed? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WT:GAN. That's where you can report any issues with a specific nomination. epicgenius (talk

) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The article IND Sixth Avenue Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:IND Sixth Avenue Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station. Cards84664 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664, OK, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Epicgenius, what are your plans for work on the Grand Central articles? Are you ready to nominate the main one? I'm still slugging away with these maps, and it's taking a lot longer than I would've thought, but I'll get there. I also still have at least 20-30 articles/websites that have content I might add... ɱ (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, you messaged me at just the right time. Today was the first day that I've been able to go to the Baruch library (the semester just started yesterday). So I finally have Schlichting's 2001 book about Grand Central. I will add some details from the book later, but I hope to nominate the GCT article within a week or so. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Williamsburg, Brooklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Grid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)