User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2019/Mar

Subway Station Ridership 1940-1995
Someone shared images of a NYCT Report titled "Annual Subway Registrations 1940 to 1995" published in October 1996. Do you think it makes sense to create ridership graphs like this? I saw them used for transit ridership somewhere on Wikipedia. This report has every station in this time period, included closed stations and removed elevated stops. There are so many interesting goodies, like the very steep ridership drop at Willets Point after the World's Fair. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to do it for every station? Sure, it's possible, but it takes a while to create all these graphs. If you included just the major stations, or only the stations with ridership sections, then this can be feasible. I think it makes sense for major stations or stations with weird ridership trends (like Willets Point or Aqueduct Racetrack) but not for others. epicgenius (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * I got your email. Thank you for the message. epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Kissena Park
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for AirTrain JFK, "about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free)."! - I have a PR open, btw ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on this tfa again! ɱ (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Queens Botanical Garden
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queens–Midtown Tunnel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Queens–Midtown Tunnel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queens–Midtown Tunnel
The article Queens–Midtown Tunnel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Queens–Midtown Tunnel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Carroll Gardens
Saw you added a chunk of text to the article. If you have designs on a GAN, I'd be happy to help sometime. Some stuff I've been meaning to do on that one, and someone else working on it might spur me on. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the offer. I wasn't initially planning for that to be a GAN, but now that you mention it, that would sound good in the future. I might work on the Carroll Gardens article once I finish adding similar data to other NYC neighborhoods, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake. Legobot (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GCT
Hi Epicgenius, I'm working on Draft:Grand Central (LIRR terminal) to host all content about the new concourse, mezzanine, tracks, and platforms below GCT. Would you consider expanding this, and would you consider splitting your Template:GCT track map in order to have just the LIRR tracks display on this draft? Thanks, ɱ  (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll help out when I can. The track map is the easiest part. If this is going to become a new article, we should frame it so people know it is part of the main GCT and not a separate station. I don't have any other major railway station articles I can compare this to, though, so it would be tough.Also, a point regarding the title, it doesn't really follow WP:USSTATION. It should really be Grand Central station (LIRR) or Grand Central Terminal (LIRR). The first one I prefer because it is a standard disambiguator and because that'll be the name of the LIRR station, but then it doesn't fit with the main article's name. The second one sounds like it's a different station, which isn't. But that's a debate for another time... epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been debating the title too, mostly followed the existing commonscat, but it will be a terminal, not a station. And yeah I can't think of any similar relationship existing between GCT and the Lirr terminal here. I've had similar issues talking about the Briarcliff Manor Public Library, which has an old and new section serving different purposes, built at way different times. As far as how this new terminal is to be addressed, I can't find any official name for it. Concept art just labels it 'Grand Central Terminal', but that might not be MTA-approved. As well, some MTA docs refer to this as a terminal separate from GCT so... I think we should talk about it generically until we have official word? ɱ  (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I mean... it could be a terminal and a station as well, but I feel like Grand Central Terminal station (LIRR) is a bit redundant. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also the disparity that Penn Station serves multiple railroads, yet is largely considered one entity, but GCT is considered wholly separate from its adjoining station of Grand Central-42nd Street. By the logic of the latter argument, GCT (LIRR) would be considered wholly separate from the MNR terminal. ɱ (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, Penn Station is actually three different stations: 34th Street–Penn Station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), 34th Street–Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line), and the rail station. Also, at Penn Station all railroads can and do share track, but at Grand Central the LIRR can't access Metro-North track or vice versa. Still, with the introduction of the new fare system, the two Grand Central Terminals might actually still be treated as part of the same station, so there's that. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know of the separate subway stations! I think they're partially considered separate because their tracks, platforms, and concourse aren't shared, like the MNR-lirr GCT situation and unlike the Penn situation. ɱ  (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the subway stations have completely different turnstiles so they are completely separate .Going back to your original point, I'd see how the Metro-North and LIRR could be considered separate. That's partially because the LIRR platforms are such a deep level. But they are connected within the same station building, so it could technically be one article. If I were to split it, it would mainly be because of the size of the main GCT article.By comparison, London's St Pancras railway station contains several different sections of the station for through Thameslink trains, international high-speed, and terminating commuter trains, which are physically separate. But these are part of the same station and are all covered on one article. On the other hand, the adjacent London King's Cross railway station does have its own article, but that's because it is a completely different building with its own platforms. There's also articles for King's Cross Thameslink railway station (now closed) and King's Cross St Pancras tube station (the metro station serving the two stations). epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, would you prefer to keep it generic for now, something like Grand Central LIRR terminal, Midtown East LIRR terminal, or 42nd Street LIRR terminal? ɱ  (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The last two don't sound natural or like the proper name, so I wouldn't go with these. I would probably go with something like Grand Central Terminal (LIRR), or your original suggestion, Grand Central (LIRR terminal). epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm now thinking it shouldn't use a proper name because it really hasn't been given one. The more I'm reading now, the more I'm convinced it's being treated as a rather separate entity that links to GCT. The MTA, NYT, and some other papers I've read today seem to just refer to it as a new station/terminal beneath Grand Central, none have so far talked about it as part of GCT or an addition/new connection. I think the separate concourse being built is the biggest key into the idea that it's intended to act and be considered separately. ɱ  (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but still, this is more commonly associated with the Grand Central area than anything else. The title should probably reflect that, at least for now. In planning documents the LIRR station is still considered to be "Grand Central Terminal". epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? Weird because no news or public-facing MTA source I've found calls it that. So can we go with Grand Central LIRR terminal? That associates Grand Central with the name and doesn't presume an official title like Grand Central (LIRR terminal) would. ɱ  (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it was on the final environmental impact statement. I'm not saying any of these options is an official title, but at least "Grand Central (LIRR terminal)" works with the pipe trick. So Grand Central (LIRR terminal) becomes Grand Central and not Grand Central (LIRR terminal). epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but I think going with WP:OR and not presuming an official title is more important than making it work with the pipe trick. ɱ  (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you have the title as "Grand Central LIRR terminal", wouldn't that also be presuming an official title? I get that we shouldn't have original research, but WP:COMMONNAME is a larger factor. If the station is commonly known by that name, it doesn't really matter what the official title is, because most people will be searching for this article under what it is most closely identified with. Which in this case is "grand central station lirr" or something similar. So either "Grand Central (LIRR terminal)" would be fine as well as "Grand Central LIRR terminal". epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see "Grand Central LIRR terminal" as reading like "LIRR terminal at Grand Central", which is generic, while readers used to "Forest Hills station (LIRR)" assume the official name is "Forest Hills", and will assume "Grand Central (LIRR terminal)" means "Grand Central" is the official name. ɱ  (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

, I see what you mean. I didn't read it that way, I just thought Grand Central (LIRR terminal) would be read exactly like Grand Central LIRR terminal, as in "Grand Central LIRR terminal". Whereas Forest Hills station (LIRR) would be read as "Forest Hills LIRR station", and so on.

In any case, let's go with "Grand Central LIRR terminal" as an interim name, but redirect Grand Central (LIRR terminal),  Grand Central (LIRR station),  Grand Central Terminal (LIRR) etc. to that title. I think that would be a good enough compromise. When a permanent station name comes out, we can move the page to that title instead. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay cool. Definitely looking forward to an official statement, and the opening! ɱ  (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fordham
Agree that Burnside is a better southern boundary for Fordham than 183rd St. :) Bellagio99 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queens–Midtown Tunnel
The article Queens–Midtown Tunnel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Queens–Midtown Tunnel 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6
Welcome to the sixth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Plans for the next three months
The Growth team has been working on features to increase new editor retention for the last seven months. We have made a lot of progress and learned a lot, and we've just finished planning for our next three months. During the next three months, we're going to focus on iterations of the help panel and the newcomer homepage. We have decided not to start the engagement emails project, because we think that we will be able to do better work by improving the projects we have already started. Specifically, these are our team goals:


 * Deploy and iterate on newcomer homepage
 * Continued iteration on help panel
 * Make the help panel available to more wikis
 * Add a fourth Wikipedia to our set of target wikis
 * Publish in-depth quantitative reporting on the data from this year
 * Assemble a report on what our team has learned so far about newcomers

Newcomer homepage
The newcomer homepage is our current major project. We hope that community members can read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. You can see in the accompanying mockup how we are thinking about the homepage.

We have recently decided on the specifications for an initial version that we can deploy and iterate on:
 * Shown in the User space
 * Desktop only (mobile comes next)
 * Four modules
 * Help module: help links and ability to ask help desk questions
 * Mentorship module: all newcomers assigned a mentor to whom they can ask questions
 * Impact module: shows the number of pageviews for pages the newcomer edited
 * Account completion module: gives some very simple recommendations of how to get started (add an email, start your user page)
 * Layout not yet personalized for each user

We're currently running live user tests on this configuration. Future work will include adapting the homepage for mobile, working on a task recommendation module, and considering how to encourage newcomers to visit their homepage.

Help panel
During the last month, the help panel was deployed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, adding it to Czech and Korean Wikipedias.As of 2019-03-14:
 * 2,425 newcomers have seen the help panel
 * 422 of them have opened it
 * 175 have clicked links
 * 27 have run searches
 * 40 have asked questions

We have been analyzing the data around usage, and we'll be publishing numbers in the coming weeks. At a high level, we see at least some users are being helped by the panel, with many clicking on links, running searches, and asking questions. We do not yet see any problems that have arisen from the help panel. Therefore, we think that the help panel is generally a positive feature – though data is still coming that will allow us to see its numerical impact. If other wikis are interested in using the help panel, please contact us on our team's talk page, in the language of your choice.

Over the past month, we have iterated on the help panel to take into account the usage patterns we are seeing. You can see in the accompanying image how the help panel currently looks.


 * We added a search capability, in which users can search the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.
 * The help panel was previously available whenever a newcomer was in "edit" mode. We are now also showing the help panel when a newcomer is in "read" mode on a page in the Help, Wikipedia, or User namespaces.

We want to see whether users find the "search" useful. If so, we may spend time on improving search results. We're also looking forward to learning whether exposing the help panel in "read" mode in more namespaces will increase usage.￼

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. '' 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Your GA nomination of Radio City Music Hall
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Radio City Music Hall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of minor comments on the review page.  Tim riley  talk   16:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the note. I will get to these soon. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Radio City Music Hall
The article Radio City Music Hall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Radio City Music Hall 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! This message is from a human being, adding my congrats and repeating that if you decide to take this admirable article further – peer review and then FAC – I shall be happy to contribute to the reviewing if you like to ping me.  Tim riley  talk   12:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you and more on Jackson Heights
Hello Epicgenius-- Thank you for your patience with our changes to Jackson Heights. I just wanted to ask for your input moving forward in terms of the order of items/sections to avoid reverts, etc. I was thinking that something along the organization of the article for Corona, Queens could work for Jackson Heights, to wit: History, Structures, Demographics, Culture (or Community), and then the rest. The History section would move from colonial times to the present, so the drug trade then could go under that section. What do you think? CheersDrX (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the message. I don't have problems with your proposed layout. I was just fixing some of the incorrectly formatted text that seemed to have been added in these edits. Just curious, though - is this an educational course? If so, I'll try my best not to edit the page as much until the course is over, to avoid edit conflicts. epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the best! Feel free to come in and fix whatever is needed whenever it is needed; my students love it actually--they feel you have their back, as they are very apprehensive about "messing up" things. We should be done in a week or so. Thanks again, and see you in cyberspace. --DrX (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , No problem. Actually, I'm glad you and your students are improving the article. I'll do my best I can to help out and fix any errors. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Power of the NYC Subway
I feel like that we need to either have an article on the Power of the NYC Subway or a section on the Technology of the NYC Subway system. In my brochure "MTA New York City Transit Facts & Figures 2000" it says that AC is used for signals, station and tunnel lighting, ventilation and miscellaneous line equipment while DC is used for operating trains and auxiliary equipment such as water pumps and emergency lighting."

We have some articles on substations, and we should expand upon it. There are two major events that are not covered in any article: the 1959 sale of power plants to ConEd, which is mentioned in Annual Reports I have, and the 1999 switchover from the older rotary machines to modern technology.

What are your thoughts? I haven't had as much time to edit recently due to work, but hope to find more time. Stay well. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for reaching out. I do think this should be a subsection of technology. If it's long enough, we should create something like Electrification of the New York City Subway, because "Power of..." sounds weird. epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I couldn't think of the right term at the moment.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

OPTO/ Conductors on the subway
One of the brochures in my collection is for the beginning of OPTO on the 42nd Street Shuttle, Dyre Avenue Shuttle, Rockaway Park Shuttle, Franklin Avenue Shuttle and West End Shuttle on September 1, 1996. I will add this to these articles. A point neglected on subway articles is that most lines used multiple conductors until the 1960s. We would need to do more research on this point, but here is another place where an article might be warranted. I don't know where else this could be put. Thanks. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suppose we can add it to the existing Signaling article, where there is OPTO for some reason. Though I don't think OPTO is really appropriate for that page, either. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)