# Talk:Hunts Point Avenue station

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 18:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hunts Point Avenue (IRT Pelham 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/20160801200338/http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.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) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hunts Point Avenue station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No problem.  I'll hopefully get to it relatively quickly! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments

I've seen a few of these articles, and have always wondered what the justification for the use of bold text is when dealing with train numbers.  Would you be able to elucidate?  After all, it seems to violate MOS:BOLD, and I'm not clear what it's trying to highlight?
@Epicgenius: Is there a concrete reason this is done? I have always done it because that is how it was done in other articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No concrete reason. I did it for the same reason as you. Actually, during my first few years of editing, these articles all had a bunch of MOS violations such as MOS:AT (in regards to spaced en-dashes and spaced slashes). These editors are mostly inactive now, though. epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Then I'm not convinced (at the moment) as to why we are arbitrarily bolding text mid-prose (the infobox, for instance, doesn't appear to bold it) so would recommend we start a new trend of not bolding such train numbers.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"<6>" my ignorance (again I suspect) but what are those <> doing there?  It appears to link to 6d??
@The Rambling Man: That is for the 6 express, which is shown on maps and trains in a diamond.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
To add on to this, WP:NCTR prohibits the creation of titles with <> in them. epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"ADA-accessible" we usually look to not use abbreviations until the first instance of the expanded version is used.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"This station opened in 1919 as part of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line." you could use that expanded version in the first sentence instead of going straight into IRT Pelham Line...
@The Rambling Man and Epicgenius: This is how we have typically written the leads of articles. It is simpler this way.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I also think that conciseness would be better here, rather than writing out the full name in the very first sentence. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company no longer exists, and it would be excessively long to write [[IRT Pelham Line|Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line]]. epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Foxhurst is mentioned in the infobox, and only in the infobox...
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"across New York City" I don't think you need repeat that given "New York City" was one of the decision-makers, perhaps just "across the city".
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"and the IRT, was known" no comma required.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"January 7, 1919 as" comma after 1919.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, e.g. first sentence of "Renovations" section.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"Vickers-designed mosaic friezes in muted shades of blue, grey and beige, with occasional bits of pale pink" I've never heard of Vickers, could we just refer to him by complete name?  And "bits" is a somewhat unencyclopedic term...
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"green i-beam columns" I have always seen this represented as I beam, because the shape of it is for the capital I, not the small one...
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I think ridership and its general trend should be covered in the prose.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That's my first set of comments, so I'll put the nomination on hold while we discuss these points.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Kew Gardens 613 I responded above re: bold numbers.  I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep doing it this way because it's the way it's been done on other articles, especially if there's nothing in the MOS to support it (in fact, the opposite...)  Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done The Rambling Man I agree. This is something that we at WP:NYCPT will need to work on and phase out.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, nice work.  I think we're good to go here, and thanks for the sensible approach to the bold numbering.  If the consensus there is to restore it, who am I to argue, but best to get that consensus.  Cheers also to epicgenius for opining.  I'm passing the nomination, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)