Talk:Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street station

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) → Van Cortlandt Park-242nd Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) — According to WP:NC, en dashes should not be used in titles of articles User: (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * 1) Oppose. The common name, as seen on signs, is 242nd Street–Van Cortlandt Park. Platform signs place the "242 St" first and in larger text, and entrance signs omit the "Van Cortlandt Park". The MTA itself is inconsistent, using both orders and sometimes only "242 St". News articles, when they include the "Van Cortlandt Park" portion, almost always place it aftor "242nd Street". This includes a New York times article from last month: "Mr. Koppell agreed, saying that every night at the 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park subway station,..." --NE2 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. NE2, the issue here is the en-dash vs. hyphen, not the order of nomenclature components. Save the name order for another discussion. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support due to the browser support issues regarding n-dashes. No opinion on moving back once the limitations are fixed. Tinlinkin 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support For technical reasons. This is not about nomenclature. Nor is this a proposition to move it anywhere else. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per technical reasons referenced above. alphachimp  15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Larry; I shouldn't have used the discussion of a move for technical reasons to bring in a different issue. Sorry about that. --NE2 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title
This article was boldly moved against consensus to Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) on March 3, 2012 by TwinsMetsFan. The station naming convention prescribes spaces around endashes. A discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation to see if consensus existed to change the naming convention to non-spaced endashes. That discussion has gone stale and there was no consensus for a change that would affect hundreds of article titles. I have moved page back to the spaced endashes per the naming convention. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Please read what I wrote on your talk page at the time again. Please reread the MOS amendment discussion to which you were referred at the time, as well. Absent a specific amendment to the MOS allowing it, project NCs cannot create exceptions to the MOS as it is Wikipediawide policy. Consensus at the project is irrelevant. Discuss if you have anything but do not revert again or I shall seek move protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are smoking, but perhaps you should to read WP:CONSENSUS again! Policy isn't meant to be prescriptive in the fashion you suggest; you can't just attempt ram a change through over here, just because some other group decided something else over there. Perhaps you should read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY too. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Per WP:MOSAT, the MOS doesn't override the naming convention that has been established. If there was no naming convention, we would use WP:COMMONNAMES.
 * No change in the current consensus was established; a discussion wasn't even really attempted. Per NotBureaucracy again, Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I was waiting for the discussion to form some sort of consensus of whether this arbitrary change was wanted or necessary. I even attempted to get more people to see the discussion by moving it from a subpage that no one watches to the project discussion page. Since no new consensus was formed in over two months, I simply moved this page back. The naming convention reflects the current consensus that was formed through much discussion. It can't just be changed arbitrarily. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * I don't understand what your fetish is with only this page when there are hundreds of articles that all follow this naming convention. It really pisses me off that you immediately move warred it back to your preferred version, ignoring the current consensus and telling me that that consensus is irrelevant! You are an administrator, you should know better! I am extremely upset with your conduct because administrators are held to a higher standard. I strongly suggest you undo your move warring and attempt some consensus building on the project page!
 * Lastly, does this arbitrary change, that would affect hundreds of articles and thousands of links, really improve the encyclopedia? That's why we are here. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus at an article talk page or whatever cannot go against policy, no matter how ardently you feel otherwise. An individual WikiProject, such as one of the many devoted to, say, a particular TV genre or franchise, cannot decide to adopt a lower standard than that embodied in WP:NFCC for the use of third-party copyrighted images, no matter how much it might arguably improve their articles, because that has been decided for Wikipedia as a whole by the discussions that led to those criteria being adopted as policy. WP:MOSAT only concerns the choice of words used in article titles where individual projects have chosen to use a different standard (i.e., species names rather than common names); I see no way that could be read to include a different standard for punctuation, especially when the MOS speaks very clearly on that issue in article titles. My "fetish" for this page is simple: since I expanded it extensively for WP:NRHP, I put it on my watchlist. Indeed, if as you say there are hundreds of WP:NYCPT articles that would be affected, then indeed they all should be renamed—a housekeeping task of the sort many members of this community have willingly done with many categories of articles in the past when policy changes demanded it.
 * As I have said, consensus in the discussions at the appropriate project talk pages was and remains a moot point when the article titles were in clear and unambiguous violation of policy as amended months ago. But, I do note that all the other participants besides yourself were pretty clear about exactly that point ... they did however fail to follow through on renaming the articles. That failure would not, even if the MOS were silent on the issue, justify a claim that no consensus was reached.
 * And as for discussion, I stated above that I left a note on your talk page on March 3 when I made the original revert (I believe there's a link?). You did not reply to it on my talk page or yours at that time, and I moved on to other things in the interim, assuming that by not responding you were indicating acceptance of my position. So, naturally, I was a little taken aback by your actions of yesterday, which until what you wrote above indicated no engagement whatsoever with a clear and unambiguous policy change (You may not like it anymore than I liked (or like) the fair-use policy I alluded to above ... but you have to live with it. Dura lex sed lex). I thus do not consider myself to have acted in any way unilaterally or outside of policy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Random question: why wasn't this subway line extended to the Yonkers border?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.24.42 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (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 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue 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/20121017230813/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=101408 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=101408
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010102251/http://www.stationreporter.net/1train.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/1train.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Architectural Style
I find it curious that the style of this station is called Victorian Gothic. The style is more Early Italian Renaissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruviuspolio (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree with you; it's how whoever wrote the NRHP nomination chose to classify it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)