Jump to content

Talk:New York Penn Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 40°45′02″N 73°59′38″W / 40.750638°N 73.993899°W / 40.750638; -73.993899
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epicgenius (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 4 June 2023 (→‎Requested move 30 May 2023: edit reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk page archive ready

In case nobody has noticed, I created a talk page archive for this page and Grand Central Terminal on November 6, 2013. Feel free to add and arrange old messages at your own discretion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just did it. I was hoping for help, along with the new talk archive page for Grand Central Terminal. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overload

This article had an overload problem with redundancy, duplication and timetable information. There is no need to repeat information about services twice in the Infobox. Some route details, because of their complexity, are better expanded and explained in the body of the article. I have trimmed a bit but I think some things still need to be better organized, edited and reduced. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of services with colorboxes is standard for US railway station articles. Info should be presented first in the infobox, then elaborated in the prose (such as in cases like this), especially in a highly-viewed article about a big station like Penn Station (this article, with 67275 views in the past month, is one of the most popular New York City-related articles). Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you revert the correction of "Image" to "File"? That is housekeeping!
  • What part of Wikipedia is not a timetable do you disagree with? External bus routes should not be detailed here. Train operation is relevant and complex enough to warrant further explanations in the body of the article.
  • Yes {{{services}}} should be in the Infobox but the {{{line}}} information, which is repeated under {{{services}}}, is redundant and overstretches the box unnecessarily. If anything, Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) is the line. Why do we need to repeat the same information up to four times?
Did you take a good look what was done here, or is you attitude "That's the way its always been done"? Well that is wrong! The station should be the focus of the article - not train service. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Image" and "File" namespaces are the same, just as "Wikipedia", "WP", and "project" namespaces are the same. What housekeeping needs to be done?
  • The Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) consists of the Ronkonkoma Branch and that's it. The infobox lists the services themselves, not the tracks. Anyway, the s-line is no place to describe the services — that is to explain the next stops of the services, not the services themselves. Only including the services in the info box but not in the text itself defeats the purpose.
What? Your reply makes no sense. "S-line" templates are designed for services, including successive stations, line and color. We don't need redundant "rail color box" templates in the Infobox when they only contain line and color. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In minor stations it may well be, but this station has over 30 services, a list of colorboxes would be better in this case. Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station, and its services, are the focuses of the article. A station has little meaning without services. The services are an integral part of the station articles, but not the service histories or descriptions. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we need information in what rail services are provided by the station. What is not needed is the redundancy and prominence given to those services. This overloading is to the detriment of the history and construction of the station, which get relegated to the bottom of the page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem unwilling to have a logical discussion" – That's not true at all, I want to discuss the reason why you're removing the service info. What makes you think that I "seem unwilling to have a logical discussion"? Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I want to retain the {{{services}}} info and remove the {{{line}}} info, which you can't see is redundant. WTF are you talking about? Secondarywaltz (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not redundant. Both the services and the s-line are present in virtually every single article about U.S. train stations. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is an information "overload". The operations of the station are simply quite complicated. discussing different aspects in several different ways is not "redundant", but makes the information more manageable and better organized.

The information for all three railroads should be presented consistently; I do not support at all the body text for Amtrak referring to the infobox, with commentary in the body for Long Island and New Jersey. Any trimming should be done carefully, not wholesale. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Right?

Is 600,000 people moving through every day correct? If so, please cite your source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcat9 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is there. It's the New York Times.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is even another source after that which gives a higher figure of 650,000.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buses

Does anyone have any reasons for keeping the buses section. It has no citations and as far as I can tell none of these buses actually use the terminal, they simply stop nearby but not at the terminal itself. This could also be an attempt at advertising. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines ticket office

Why is this being removed? It's part of the station, like the waiting areas and concourses are. Epic Genius (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it is a rather large ticketing office. About as large as the train ticketing office. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20 Shevat 5775 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to mention it. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was placed under "services" which it was not. United Airlines never "serviced" the station. second, it's not notable and even mentioning it borders on an advertisement. I'm not even convinced Vamoose bus should be mentioned since they don't actually stop at the station. There is no need for it. If you still disagree please explain why. Thanks!21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly31121993 (talk • contribs)

It is the only United Airlines ticket office listed by them in continental USA! That seems important enough to mention. Please sign your comments. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty notable, and I think he did, but used five tildes by accident (which puts a time) instead of four. Three results in just your name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23 Shevat 5775 23:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this office, being notable, can be listed in a section entirely on its own. Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a source that mentions that it is the only United Airlines ticket office left in the entire U.S. and that that is somehow notable than, yes, I agree it can be included, although not under services.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the reference for that information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Wbm1058 (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → Penn Station – While Pennsylvania Station might be its historic name, the station is much better known in reliable sources as "Penn Station", making that form its common name (i.e., the few sources that call it "Pennsylvania Station" are historic, but historic sources still predominantly call it Penn Station).[1][2][3][4][5] I'd also contend that this station is the primary topic for "Penn Station" (rather than the redirect to Pennsylvania Station) as searches for "Penn Station" stack the New York station results far above any other Penn or Pennsylvania Stations. (The traffic to the NYC station is an order of magnitude higher than the others as well.) Alternatively, it is sometimes disambiguated as "New York Penn Station", though I believe the proposal as proposed to be the most fitting solution. czar 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on multiple levels. Firstly, there's an issue of WP:TONE. While the "Penn Station" nickname is very widely used, it's used with an understanding that it is a nickname, and that the full name is Pennsylvania Station. Secondly, all the other Pennsylvania Stations, such as Newark and Baltimore, which are just as readily nicknamed "Penn Station"; your proposed name is utterly ambiguous, even in its own metropolitan area. The current name is unambiguous and not a nickname. It should remain. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:TONE? It doesn't appear to say anything about article titles. What is your evidence that it is solely a nickname? The books linked above describe a definitive and unambiguous Penn Station without need for a New York clarifier—why would a national/international book do that if it were just a local nickname? The other Penn Stations do not have anywhere near equivalent sources or prominence by that name. czar 01:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the evidence of a nickname, Pennsylvania Railroad originally built both versions of the station, but was merged into Penn Central Railroad before it was done. The station kept the name. Also, it doesn't really matter if the one in New York is more prominent than those in other parts of the country. They're still called "Pennsylvania Station" or "Penn Station" and the disambiguation is necessary. Therefore, any reasonable editor should Strongly Oppose your proposal. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE, per Pennsylvania Station sign at entrance --Zfish118 ⋉talk 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The established consensus at USSTATION, among others, is that signage is not a reliable source, whether you use that image to argue for "Pennsylvania" or the image in the article infobox to argue for "Penn". --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not presenting formal research as to the official name, only providing an example of why the current name remains appropriate. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the angry rant Dan. Consensus was against you, and for good reason: there's absolutely no reason for readers to not know where to find an article because of some over-systematic pre-disambiguation. No one else seems to be so wedded to system over practical considerations. Get over it. This move request has nothing to do with that and is totally not the place for you to rant. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, if people like User:Cuchullain had their way Springfield Junction (Long Island Rail Road) and Oceanside (LIRR station) would have the same qualifier, despite the fact that one applies to a station, and the other applies to a junction, or some other structure. At least he has enough sense to oppose this move. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So? What's wrong with Oceanside station (Long Island Rail Road)? It's straightforward, makes clear its talking about a station, and is easy to understand for someone who doesn't already know the naming conventions. That's the point; someone shouldn't have to know the conventions ahead of time. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DanTD inadvertently makes the case for why standard disambiguation is necessary. The idea that "(Long Island Rail Road)" is a suitable qualifier for a junction but not a station is silly. Whatever difference exists is so esoteric as to be inscrutable to anyone who's not already intimately familiar with the former conventions of this one WikiProject, which is impossible as they weren't written down, or at all similar to standard Wikipedia practice.--Cúchullain t/c 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, "LIRR" is a better qualifier than "Long Island Rail Road," whether "station" is inside or outside the parentheses. That said, I would not ordinarily support mass-moving the LIRR articles because they already have "station" in the qualifier, and USSTATION is a waste of energy better expended elsewhere.. epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "LIRR" is recognizable, it's a fine disambiguator, but it's likely that a lot of the articles don't need a parentheses at all if we just use standard disambiguation. The problem with just leaving them where they is that they're incredibly difficult to find for anyone not already familiar with this highly idiosyncratic way of titling articles.--Cúchullain t/c 05:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're so convince that what I'm saying is "silly," I'd like to point out that Springfield Junction (LIRR) already redirects to Springfield Junction (Long Island Rail Road). There's also a Springfield Junction (LIRR station) redirect, but that never should've been made, because there was never a station there. The current system at least has some general consistency, that you're bent on destroying, and some administrators and editors have made worse moves than you ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Springfield Junction doesn't need any disambiguation, as there aren't any other articles. But the point is that on a distressingly high number of articles, there's been no attempt to disambiguate the titles. People looking for the Long Island Rail Road's Woodmere station would be most likely to search for it as, well, "Woodmere station". However, neither "Woodmere station" nor Woodmere connects them to the article. If they didn't already know that for obscure reasons the article is titled "Woodmere (LIRR station)", despite the lack of any other station called that, they'd never find it. The biggest problem with the deprecated convention is that it puts forced consistency above getting readers to the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 14:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in case you didn't notice after you posted this message, there are other Springfield Junctions in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. There may not be articles for those yet, but somebody obviously wants them, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the effort to create the red links. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disambiguates based on subjects we cover, not on subjects that exist. A dab page with one article and 3 red links helps no one. This kind of thing is another problem with these unwritten conventions.--Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the existence of the others doesn't help either, whether articles on them exist or not. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added Woodmere Station to disambiguation page since this was posted. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that people should have left the naming convention alone because it wasted time and resources, but it would still waste resources to revert all these mass moves, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but now we have an inconsistent naming convention. At least the NYC Subway stations should still be left alone. However, WP:USSTATION dictates that Amtrak and smaller rail systems' stations are moved to the shorter name, if it's not already covered by a project guideline. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "Pennsylvania Station" is a perfectly reasonable, concise article that discusses the notable issue of several stations baring the same name. It gives a very quick snapshot of each station's name and history, and provides a quick link to each main article. The disambiguation page serves a slightly different purpose, being purely a briefly annotated list of articles using similar names. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree, looking it over some more. There's also items there that wouldn't be on the disambiguation page because they're not commonly k own as "Pennsylvania Station", at least not any time in recent history. So those would likely be lost if there was a merger as they wouldn't be appropriate to list on a disambiguation page. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a separate discussion that should be moved to Talk:Pennsylvania Station. That said, I strongly disagree with merging a disambiguation with an article, first because it messes up link disambiguation on these pages, but second because that page would need disambiguation itself to distinguish from the other "Pennsylvania Stations" that aren't related to the PRR. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and for the record, I originally asked that question because as oknazevad pointed out on the one hand the two Pennsylvania Station articles seem redundant, and on the other one is clearly a disambiguation page. Knowing this I would have to oppose your suggestion, because "Penn Station" is strictly the nickname for Pennsylvania Station. Would anyone care to split this discussion off, or would you rather just declare it a dead issue? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead issue to me. I didn't intend it to become a "live" issue in the first place. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doing a general Google search for "Penn Station" brought up for me both the restaurants and articles and books about "Pennsylvania Station", spelled fully out. I do not think that "Penn Station" can be definitively shown to be a primary topic based on Google results. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A general Google search includes unreliable sources. A Google Books search, as above, while not foolproof, is more reliable. Additionally, did you include the "pws" parameter to prevent search bias, as the link above does? --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • James, I think you're focusing on the wrong issue here. Wikipedia readers are used to landing on a page with the subject's proper name, and Penn Station is not the station's proper name, it's a nickname, and it's a nickname shared by multiple stations in multiple cities. If you wanted Penn Station to redirect to Pennsylvania Station (New York City) (which I would oppose by the way, this is a terrible idea), that could at least be defended because it was just taking people to the page clearly marked as about New York's Penn Station. But actually having people land on Penn Station could create the false impression that there is only one Penn Station, which is wrong. When you're in Baltimore, you don't tell a cab driver you want to go to Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), you just say "Penn Station". When the PRR was still thriving, "Penn Station" was shorthand for Pennsylvania Station in many cities, not just New York's. That's why Penn Station currently redirects to Pennsylvania Station (which describes the many Penn Stations, and lists them out), and why it would be a terrible idea for it to redirect to Pennsylvania Station (New York City) (which is but one such station). Using Pennsylvania Station (New York City) as the actual page name clarifies that the article is only about New York's Penn Station, and not the other Penn Stations in existence. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia readers are used to landing on a page with the subject's proper name
The article title policy is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying.
actually having people land on Penn Station could create the false impression that there is only one Penn Station
This is what hatnotes are for.
When the PRR was still thriving, "Penn Station" was shorthand for Pennsylvania Station in many cities, not just New York's.
While that may have been true historically, the New York station is the primary topic with respect to usage and long-term significance in English language reliable sources currently.
Using Pennsylvania Station (New York City) as the actual page name clarifies that the article is only about New York's Penn Station
This is what hatnotes and the article's lede are for. Titles should be concise.
--Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:COMMONNAME you point to does not mandate that a slightly more common name for an article override consensus that a slightly more precise name is appropriate given the nature of a topic. Given the existence of at least 8 stations currently or formerly known as "Pennsylvania Station" or "Penn Station", only consensus can decide the best way of presenting the material. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The policy does not necessarily mandate the common name. The title should be decided by consensus. I did not say otherwise. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is there's many Pennsylvania Stations. Not just one. And while I don't discount that New York's is the best known, I don't think it's so overwhelming that it can go without disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of these stations' existence. Certainly, we would not be having this discussion otherwise. The argument you make is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out two other issues; Besides the existing Pennsylvania Station in New York City, you also have two subway stations partially named for Penn Station that are designed to serve the railroad terminal; 34th Street – Penn Station (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) and 34th Street – Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line). Between those three, and the one in Newark, you have four in the New York Tri-State area. Back in 2008, somebody wanted to merge the subway stations into this article, which would've been wrong as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (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.

The use of LIRR Today in this article

The LIRR Today is a reliable third-party source, since the writer got the info from the MTA.

On a side note, "Empire Station" is the proposed name for Penn Station's replacement, as per News and Notes from The LIRR Today – January 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to actually be able to see that, but as a closed group page, with no confirmation that his claimed information is valid, I don't think it's an appropriate source. If his stuff is from the MTA, it should be pu locally available, and that should be used as the source, not the blog. If it's not, it's just hearsay and not a good source. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Governor’s presentation and the accompanying documentation, there were some places where the station complex was referred to as “Empire State Station” or “Empire Station”, and that’s caused some consternation on the part of those that are fond of the station’s current name. Personally, I have no real attachment to the name Penn Station—the Pennsylvania Railroad is long gone out of business, there’s very few traces of the existing station left, and, no, we’re not in Pennsylvania. I’m of the opinion that the LIRR ought to just refer to the station as “New York”, like NJT and Amtrak do, until East Side Access opens, since that’s the name of the place where the station is located. The names of the LIRR’s stations are awfully inconsistent… we have Penn Station, Hunterspoint Avenue, Broadway, Merillon Avenue, Nassau Boulevard, Country Life Press, Gibson, Glen Street, and Centre Avenue which are particular locations within a large neighborhood or village, and largely useless out of context if you’re not familiar with the area. And then we have Garden City, Valley Stream, Glen Cove, and East Rockaway, which are the names of places, but not the only stations in those villages or cities (so they’re the exact opposite of the last set of stations). Then there’s Nostrand Avenue which is the name of a location, but there’s no other stations in Crown Heights, and Flushing-Main Street, which has both the neighborhood name and the identifying location, and lastly “Atlantic Terminal (Brooklyn)” which is the exact opposite of that. It’s all very confusing if you’re not familiar with the system. New York-Empire Station is a good name for the complex." LIRR Today You could go to http://lists.thelirrtoday.com to get his sources and sign up--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I can just see why this may not be considered a reliable source—the writer puts his personal opinion there. However, the information about the tracks are sourced to his webpage, which, at the very least, tells facts, albeit with a spice of opinions. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about opinions being included. It's the fact that it's a personal blog that cannot be accessed by the public at large because it's invitation only. It's a double whammy of unacceptable sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are the maps official maps that are simply hosted on the blog, or sketches the blogger made based on other information? If official, they could be cited directly to the MTA, with only a courtesy link to the blog. Even if unofficial, removing this as a citation is unacceptable, unless a stronger source were substituted, as this would leave significant portions of the article uncited. The lack of free availability on the web is not itself a reason to disqualify a source. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 18:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone created these maps based on MTA data, but it's not an official map. Anyway, you would have to ask the website's owner for access via Google here. epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, let me get this. I can create a personal blog, hide it from the public and only allow some people to look at it, then boldly go around and link to it from every Wikipedia LIRR article? That can then be used as a reference? That is acceptable? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats what I'm saying! I don't care if it's subscription only (even if that subscription is free). Being a subscription only service has never disqualified something as a reference. But being a blog, and there is no other way to describe the site (which I used to visit before it was made private only) does completely disqualify it. Especially when it was made private only because the owner was catching flack from railroad employees about blatant errors. It's not in anyway a reliable source and must be replaced ASAP. Heck, it should be removed outright, just like any citation to a message board post. oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did use to be a public blog, but it was taken down in July 2014 and hasn't been up every since. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue today is solely the fact that this information is cited to this blog, and has always been attributed to the blog. If the references are to be removed, then the content cited to them must be removed as well. The information, at least in my opinion, is not so obviously wrong to warrant immediate removal, so the references ought to stay until they can be replaced by by better sources. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the edits to Wikipedia by the owner were in 2013 for the self-promotion of their blog. If that is how it got in here in the first place, does that change the propriety of how these articles were referenced? Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is @Epicgenius: the author of LIRR Today? From what I have seen in the edit history, it was Epicgenius who added the track lay-out content and cited LIRR Today as his source. I agree that using blogs as sources is inappropriate, which puts us in the unfortunate situation we are in today. It is also inappropriate, however, to leave information unsourced, ESPECIALLY if the information came from a disputed source. If the content can be independently verified and cited to another source, that would be best. Otherwise the sources must remain with article content, or both the content and sources must be removed. Leaving unsourced content in the article known to come from an a questionable source is unacceptable. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stations layout

There is a section on the layout of the platforms and tracks, but is there not a diagram of the layout? Because the explanation is awfully confusing. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved with strong opposes unlikely for consensus to move there are strong opposes, making it unlikely that there is a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC) statement clarified per ping by DMacks 18:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → Pennsylvania Station (New York) – None of the other stations listed at Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation) would be excluded because of the word "City" - either they are in New York City (making the word "City" in the disambiuation irrelevant) or they are outside of New York State (making the word "City" unnecessary). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose. Keep the disambiguator consistent with the title of the article on the city. "New York" is an ambiguous term at best, and natural disambiguation demands including the word "City". oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that New York is ambiguous, the only reasonable meainings are places which this station is located in; and the word City doesn't help disambiguate it from any of these others. For the same reason, the category tree for the borough of Queens is Category:Queens, New York. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How does "City" not help disambiguate from the state as a whole? I really don't understand how you come to that conclusion. "Queens, New York" is refering to the state, but the city, in that naming, just like a postal address. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that whether the "New York" refers to the state or the city is irrelevant, as the subject is in the city, and notthing in any part of the state has a potential claim for PRIMARYTOPIC over it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. If it's in the city, why not just say "New York City", since "New York" does not inherently mean the city. That's the underlying assumption of your request that is mistaken.oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the epic discussion at Talk:New York (and the subsequent subpage regarding a requested move) regarding the placement of the article on the state. Summary: inconclusive at best. No consensus to move the state article, but a vague consensus that the state isn't the primary topic for the undisambiguated "New York". Indeed, it read that there's no primary topic. Certainly there was no firm consensus that the city is the primary topic for the undisambiguated name, though that was outside the scope of the most recent RFC. But dropping the "City" from the article on the city is a no go, nor should it be removed from disambiguators, as then the disambiguator is itself too ambiguous; no one should presume the undisambiguated "New York" means the city. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, thius RFC is irrelevant here, since my basic claim is that either way, this Pennsylvania Station, and 3 others listed at Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation), are in "New York", so the "City" component isn't necessary as part of the disambiguator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my above response. "New York" does not inherently mean the city, and should not be used as a disambiguator when specifying the city, which this parenthetical does. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed its possible lack of relevancy as well after reading through it. Didn't mean to basically throw in a red herring; I just recalled that it had a lot of participation and I think it was so massive that it was advertised on the watchlist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, per oknazevad. This appears to be yet another misguided effort to eliminate states from city names. Granted, the state isn't in the name, but it's being done for the same reason. Also none of the other Pennsylvania Stations are located in cities that have the same names as states. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIRR station naming convention discussion

There is a discussion occurring regarding the naming of LIRR station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Pennsylvania Station
New York, NY
Amtrak inter-city rail station
Long Island Rail Road commuter rail terminal
NJ Transit commuter rail terminal
Entrance on Seventh Avenue, with Madison Square Garden and Penn Plaza in the background
General information
Location7th & 8th Avenues, between 31st & 33rd Streets
New York, NY 10001
Coordinates40°45′02″N 73°59′38″W / 40.750638°N 73.993899°W / 40.750638; -73.993899
Owned byAmtrak
Line(s)Northeast Corridor, Empire Corridor

I would suggest that "Pennsylvania Station" followed by "New York, NY" on the next line is more intuitive for the station name parameter, even if it slightly inconsistent with the order of the list of railroad served Immediately below. This way, it is more consistent with the article name, and the Amtrak schedule name serves to naturally disambiguate. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree Feankly, I wouldn't use any railroad's styling for this infobox. Yes, Amtrak owns the page, but its largest user is the LIRR, NJ Transit also uses it, and all three have signage in differing styles there. Platform signage doesn't look like the infobox from any of them. Remember, the infobox styling is meant to emulate ststion signage, not timetable naming. Plus it doesn't match the article title. It seems to me to. E a step too far to make it look the way it does. oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's because this station is owned by Amtrak that we use the Amtrak styling (as opposed to LIRR, NJ Transit, or generic styling). But yes, this new version of the name looks fine. epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest train station in the Western hemisphere

The claim should be substantiated. US and UK exclude subway passengers from the count. By that measure, the claim may be true. Most other countries appear to include them. By that measure, there appears to be a number of train stations in Europe with higher traffic figures.
Example: Gare du Nord (France), 214 to 270M passengers/year depending on source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-busiest-railway-stations-in-europe.html
https://www.parisinsidersguide.com/gare-du-nord-paris.html
https://www.gares-sncf.com/sites/default/files/field_files/2015-06/paris-nord_station_-_transforming_-_press_kit.pdf
Ultimately one must decide if "the busiest" (a vague claim) should be based on partial or full counts. Alternatively, one could say "one of the busiest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.76.163 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris is in the eastern hemisphere, as is most of continental Europe. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2019

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: Not Moved. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL 150.250.5.30 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2019 (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 13 June 2020

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: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → New York Penn Station – "Penn Station" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and "New York Penn Station" is the WP:NATURAL disambiguation. 24.228.135.248 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 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.

Required revision of this article due to the opening of Moynihan Train Hall

As of mid-January, 2021, much of the information at the end of the article concerning the usage of Penn Station is no longer accurate or relevant due to the opening of Moynihan Train Hall across the street. This article needs to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:8A07:5D00:2410:E1B7:E97A:B79 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Moynihan Train Hall has its own Wikipedia article. Maybe they should be merged, and the current Penn Station Article Can have a much bigger emphasis on the new concourse. A similar situation exists with the World Trade Center station (PATH) article. While Wikipedia describes it as only a PATH staion, it also servies as a entrance an concrose for the 1, 2, 3, A, C, E, N, R, and W trains. --Rckania (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"New York railway station" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New York railway station and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#New York railway station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal?

Does a railway terminal need all of its trains to terminate, or a majority, or just some, in order to earn that title? This station is referred to as a "terminal" in some portions of the article (and at {{NYC terminals}}), even though it's clear there are some through-services (what portion?). In the Grand Central Terminal article, Penn is distinctly pointed out as a "station", unlike the east side terminal. ɱ (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only through-services, sadly, are Amtrak, though I have been advocating for through-running commuter rail services. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Penn's not a terminal no matter how you slice it. That template should probably be refactored. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the last stop for nearly all trains in the station. It is "the end of a railroad or other transport route, or a station at such a point." It is a terminal. Just because the tracks go through, it does not mean that it is not a terminal. @Epicgenius:, what do you think? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that Penn Station is indeed a terminus for many routes. It is certainly a terminal for the LIRR and for NJ Transit, as trains discharge all of their passengers here and then head into West Side Yard or Sunnyside Yard, respectively. However, it is not strictly a "terminal station" (at least not for all trains), since Amtrak trains can enter and exit from both the west and the east. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a terminal in the sense that services terminate there, and everyone must depart the train. That most of those trains run through to storage yards opposite the station from the incoming direction (the West Side Yards for the LIRR, Sunnyside for NJ Transit) doesn't change the fact that it's the terminus of service for the vast majority of the people using it. And since tracks 1 through 4 are dead end tracks, it literally is a terminal for the trains coming into those tracks, so it physically is a terminal at least in part.
The whole digression at the Grand Central article is entirely about why calling that place "Grand Central Station" is technically incorrect. It's just a railfan pet peeve being given justification with pedantry, and doesn't affect the fact that for all practical purposes Penn Station is a terminal for the commuter trains that use it.
Finally, the linked template doesn't actually say "terminal" in its text, except for the three stations with that as part of their name (Grand Central, Hoboken, and Atlantic Terminal, for those keeping score). The header says "major railroad stations" as it also includes the major transfer stations, like Jamaica and Secaucus. Nothing on the template needs to be changed. oknazevad (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting take. I do see that the template mentions "terminals" in its purple-shaded sidebar, even differentiating terminals from stations. Not sure why that's even relevant to note there. I am also thinking of moving Railroad terminals serving New York City, as some others listed are stations, not terminals, nor is the distinction really that important for the purpose of the article. ɱ (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regardless of current services, I'm sure in the 113-year history of the station, the country-wide through services were frequent and important, and thus it's not called "Pennsylvania Terminal". ɱ (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the PRR subsidiary that oversaw the building of it was the "Pennsylvania Tunnel and Terminal Railroad" (emphasis added). oknazevad (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could make the argument that that new information supports my statement, in that the company consciously chose to alter the name of the station after construction. ɱ (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a terminal a terminal is track configuration, not service behavior. A significant number of the services at Basel SBB, for example, terminate there, because of Basel's importance and geographic location. It has some terminating tracks, but it's not a terminal. Almost all of Penn's tracks are through tracks. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Merriam-Webster: "a freight or passenger station that is central to a considerable area or serves as a junction at any point with other lines". Doesn't have to have only dead-end tracks to be considered a terminal. That's an etymological fallacy. Any major connecting hub can be called a terminal, much like in electrical circuitry. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 2023

– The current titles obscure the relation between the two stations, especially in contrast to other Pennsylvania Stations. (The modern one was built on top of the former one.) Pageview ratio in the last 90 days was about 2.12:1 in favor of the modern station. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Penn_Station&oldid=1158425563"