Talk:Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963)

Combine articles

I love the original Penn Station but it seems like an unnecessary amount of work to maintain two pages about the station, especially as this article is essentially wholly contained in the modern station article. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. This article is a wholly unnecessary content fork, and contains absolutely no distinct content requiring a separate article. Why was it created in the first place? Seriously, the entire article text is still in the main article! This article should be deleted, period. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

absolutely not. there are abundant references to establish notability of both articles. but don't believe me, take it to AfD, and you will be snowballed. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No one doubts that the material covered here is notable, that's why it is already quite well and sufficiently covered in the existing article. You took a six-year-old, off-hand, opposed at the time suggestion for a separate page, and without much additional discussion copied verbatim the entire article text from the article where it had been for years. Without removing the original. As was noted in the original opposition the the suggestion, it is still the same station, even if it's configuration has changed. We don't split JFK Airport every time a building is replaced, so why should Penn Station's article receive that treatment. Again, it's the same station—people still board trains sitting on the same tracks from the exact same platforms since the place opened in 1910. The existence of a separate article creates the false impression that the current Penn is a whole new place, and it is not. That is what I object to. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

notability goes directly to the merge point. there is abundant sourcing about the historical building, separate and apart from the current building. the JFK terminals are not notable. otoh, i could make the same argument about the Worldport Terminal [1] the current Penn is a new place on the graveyard of the old. this recent bias is well documented. Wikipedia:Recentism if you want to make a fool out of yourself, continue down this path. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963). 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/20130617175450/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/grand_central_terminal_at_100/176190/grand-central-terminal-at-100--legal-battle-nearly-led-to-station-s-demolition to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/grand_central_terminal_at_100/176190/grand-central-terminal-at-100--legal-battle-nearly-led-to-station-s-demolition
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110035026/http://gothamist.com/2007/09/04/penn_station_eagles_in.php to http://gothamist.com/2007/09/04/penn_station_eagles_in.php

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) 08:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• As far as sourcing goes, is measuringworth reliable? How about hiddennj? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• epicgenius: I'm slightly confused about WP:NPOV, in phrases like "that could somehow atone for the loss of an architectural treasure." placing on hold for these two minor problems. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: Thanks for the review. I just got back from a Labor Day vacation so I'm pretty busy right now, but I'll address these soon. epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: I've looked over the article and removed some of the POV phrases. As for sources, I've removed the HiddenNJ source, as it's self-published. It looks like Measuring Worth is reliable (it's just a calculator for GDP inflation, and anyway, the reference is contained within {{inflation-fn}}). epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• OK. Not the longest review, but a longer review isn't necessary because I think it's a fine article. nice work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

It had levels?

WOW what a photo!

Quote end of Lead: "The sole remaining portions of the original station are the platforms at the station's lowest level,"

Levels? For a train station!? As a Westerner I found that almost shocking. ...And no other mention in the lede? That too. To me, to grasp it, that's a HUGE thing. I think for a proper overview, more explaining and possibly less fact-listing would be more informative. (Like how many tracks & levels, and to where, how did it function, how did it die, and so forth.) MOS:LEAD
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. There are two basements: the mezzanine directly under the street and the tracks below it. MOS:LEAD says to explain the basic facts, not give an in-depth rationale for why things are arranged that way. epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pennsylvania Station (New York City) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)