Talk:116th Street–Columbia University station

Latest comment: 3 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination

Untitled

edit

Two issues with this article that I had as an uninformed general reader:

1.) I don't know what "revenue service" means in the following clause: "the station is currently unused in revenue service." 2.) I don't know what "crossover" means in the following clause: "there is a crossover at the station." (I guess this means that you can go from the southbound side to the northbound side? But that would imply that at most stations, you can't make that sort of switch, which strikes me as improbable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.165.12 (talkcontribs) 07:37, 2010 April 24

Revenue service means a train carrying passengers, ie, making money. The express track is unused, therefore not in revenue service.
A crossover is a pedestrian passageway that allows a free transfer between the uptown and downtown sides. You are correct that many stations' crossovers have been closed. Here's a system map with yellow dots indicating free crossovers. Acps110 (talkcontribs) 08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit

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)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit

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 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 116th Street–Columbia University (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:

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) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Stop moving the pages

edit

@StudiesWorld and Epicgenius: While I disagree with the decision made in the Rfc, I accept the decision. However, your moving of these article titles is breaking templates, such as the station layout template. I urge you to stop moving pages until the templates are all fixed. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kew Gardens 613, All right, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for dealing with some of these.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Kew Gardens 613, which templates have to be fixed? I'm happy to help. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk21:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

  •   - New GA, policy compliant, hooks are cited inline and are neutral and otherwise compliant, hooks are interesting and reliably sourced. QPQ done. I have a preference for ALT0, but either would be good. Hog Farm Bacon 03:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply