Talk:42nd Street–Bryant Park/Fifth Avenue station

Naming
This is a strange case - signs at ground level say "5 Avenue-Bryant Park" or "42 St-Bryant Park", but obviously refer to all the services. Does it differ based on which platforms the entrance leads directly to? How separate are the stations - is it a single long passageway? --NE2 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The entrances leading to the IRT Flushing Line mezzanine read "5 Avenue", since that station is "Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park". The entrances leading to the IND Sixth Avenue Line mezzanine read "42 Street" because that station is "42nd Street–Bryant Park". The stations are fairly separated. How much so? There is a single long passageway between the two. The Sixth Avenue station is under Sixth Avenue. The Flushing Line station's western end is nearly halfway to Fifth Avenue. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Imdanumber1 needs an "exact comment that the articles should be split", here it is: this should be split. The title is a neologism and the stations are separate. --NE2 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suffix
PRECISION's 1st 'graph is essentially devoted to ruling out article titles like 42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway), where e.g. 42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park is not in use. (Not to mention virtually any use of "(New York City Subway)", since "New York" or "subway" will almost always do the job if any Dab'n at all is needed.) This is policy, and even if WikiProject Trains discussion concluded over-Dab'g was a great idea (Naming conventions hints that they haven't, BTW), such titles would be revertible. --Jerzy•t 07:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the page
The page has attracted info that doesn't belong on a Dab, and it's not particularly important for that page to play the Dab'n role of getting users from the little used phrase jumble of words -- note how many Web pages with significantly different content actually use that phrase jumble of words:
 * 15 for "42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park "

and mostly WP-derived. It may actually ameliorate the conflict over the perhaps not completely resolved 2-stations-or-1 controversy to do it both ways, by replacing the bad Dab with a small article: there clearly were two stations at Bryant Park, and in many people's minds (at the least, those who never use the tunnel) there still are two. There is also overlap between the two articles, reflecting material that is not specific to either and would be kept better updated if centralized. The slight need for navigation from the clumsy title to one or the other "station" can still be met, and the duplicated info centralized, by using the supposed Dab's title as as a Rdr to a short article "Bryant Park subway complex", linking to the two stations, describing the tunnel between them, its contents, the former transfer policy, and perhaps more. --Jerzy•t 07:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The MTA classifies that station as two stations because they make up the official count of 468 (as opposed to 423) stations. (If you're really interested in the background, look at List of New York City Subway transfer stations and List of New York City Subway stations in Manhattan.) Now, as I said in the WikiProject thread regarding the moves, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue are just as, if not more so, significant to include in the name than Bryant Park. Bryant Park was a recent addition, in the past 10 years or so, presumably because it is an identifiable landmark. But to name the title just "Bryant Park" is not only oversimplification, it's not the common name of the station complex as riders know it more as 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue. The problem of long names is indeed a problem we faced in the WikiProject. There are other station complexes with even longer names than this one that have not been combined into one article yet. A glaring example, 23rd Street – Ely Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), 45th Road – Court House Square (IRT Flushing Line) and Long Island City – Court Square (IND Crosstown Line) should be one article. But there's no sufficient or efficient name for this complex. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Duplicative?
I'm not quite sure about the point of this article. There is one on the Fifth Ave. station and one on the Sixth Ave. station to which it is linked. Do we really need this? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Merge: These stations have a combined fare control; therefore the MTA can't provide ridership for each individual station. I think we should merge both pages. Each existing article title would still exist as a redirect to the proper section on the new page. Changing this page from a WP:DAB page to what it is now, seems like a violation of WP:CFORK. Also, the previous title was created based on current consensus at WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.


 * Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just to clarify my initial comment, when I referred to "duplicative" I was referring to this article. I wouldn't support merging all three into one at this time. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

White space
I wonder if some formatting ace might be able to address the white space problem. I've tried several alternatives, but none work when previewed. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the white space is due to the infoboxes, there's nothing I can do about that. Using a single infobox in a station complex, while possible with a little editing, leads to inconsistency or confusion because the MTA considers it as 2+ stations. Tinlinkin (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue (IND Eighth Avenue Line) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Easement agreement
Here is a 2013 easement agreement for the station entrance at the SW corner of 6th/42nd. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

GA
@Epicgenius Besides some more sourcing in station layout, is there anything else you feel needs to be done before this can be nominated? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kew Gardens 613, honestly, I don't think there are any other issues. The content is broad enough; the only things that really need fixing are a few unsourced statements. Any additional details that you find are, of course, appreciated, but I think this article covers all major aspects of the station. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius There might be a bit more to add about the construction/proposals for the transfer to the 7, but short of that, I don't think there is much more to add. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)