# Talk:South Ferry/Whitehall Street station

The last paragraph of the intro section is inconsistent in its naming and use of Wikilinking to previous instances of the South Ferry.  The former uses the Wikipedia article name ("South Ferry loops") but not the actual station name in the text, while the latter uses the station name "South Ferry" with a piped link to the Wikipedia article.  Following is how it reads as of now:

This station complex is the third on the site to bear the name South Ferry. The subway station it replaced, South Ferry loops, serving the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line and the IRT Lexington Avenue Line was the second, in service from 1905 to 2009. The first was an elevated station, South Ferry, now demolished, which served the IRT Ninth Avenue Line, IRT Sixth Avenue Line, IRT Third Avenue Line and IRT Second Avenue Line and was open from 1878 to 1950.
Since we already said it bears the name South Ferry in the first sentence, it seems redundant to name it again in each individual reference.  We could remove the restatements of the names as follows, but then the link would be relevant to the context, and not the actual linked term:

...The subway station it replaced, serving the...
...The first was an elevated station, now demolished, which...
I believe this needs to be fixed.  Since many of you are more experienced with the styles used on Wikipedia than I am, I leave it in your hands to resolve.  Any thoughts?  -Sme3 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the IRT-7th Ave states that "[t]he loop station has the distinction of being the only station complex to completely close while remaining intact."  This was recently Wikilinked to a list of closed, but existing stations; which seems to contradict the very statement. Can someone explain what this sentence means, and perhaps reword it?  -Sme3 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The only station complex to close yet remain intact. Other station complexes have closed, but have been demolished. For example, Sands St in Brooklyn. Maybe I should have linked station complex to something explaining that a complex is served by multiple lines and usually represented by a single dot on the map. In this case, the loops were served by the IRT Broadway–7th Ave and IRT Lexington Ave lines. Hope this helps. :-) Acps110 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Now I understand. I was thinking "complex" might be the operative word, but had thought of it being a complex in the 1 and R-W sense, not the 7th Ave and Lex Ave sense. But are two IRT lines coming together considered a complex? I look at Nevins St (and for that matter, many of the IRT-only stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx) and I wouldn't call those complexes. -Sme3 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct! The complex as 1    N    R    W  is the current South Ferry-Whitehall Street complex. The 7th Ave and Lex Ave were the former loops station complex.
The distinction at South Ferry loops is a little muddy. Both platforms were called South Ferry and both served individual lines (Lex Ave - inner; 7th Ave - outer). There was never a free transfer between the two platforms, but for a time late night Lexington Ave services served the outer loop (giving an unadvertised free transfer to the 1). The most compelling case to call it a complex, is that both loop platforms were represented on the map as a single dot. A better example of an IRT-only complex in the Bronx would be 149th St-Grand Concourse. Two levels served by the 4 (Jerome line) upstairs and 2, 5 (White Plains Rd line) downstairs. Free transfers between directions on the same line and to the other level. (Also indicated by a single dot on the map.) Nevins St is listed as being on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. Even though it serves both West Side and East Side trains, it is not a complex because it is only one line. Another IRT-only complex is Grand Central; Upper level shuttle platforms, diagonal Lexington Ave platforms and lower level Flushing line platform. Each could be considered a station in its own right, but all have common fare control and free passage among levels.
Another helpful tidbit to consider is the difference between a line and a service. The Lexington Ave line is served by the 4, 5, and 6 services. This will help you figure out whether it's a station or a complex.
Now to blow your mind a little, here's a complex that hasn't been finished; Lexington Avenue-63rd Street. This is one of my favorite unfinished stations in the system. IND (F) on the south side of the platforms on both levels; BMT (Q) on the north side of both platforms to/from the Second Avenue Subway. (Two island platforms on two levels, but it doesn't look like it now!) Acps110 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an edit war brewing over whether or not this article is a stub.  As per WP:STUB, a stub is "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject".  In my mind, there is some historical information in this article, therefore it is not a stub.  I am reverting back to the "non-stub" status, and request any debate occur here. -Sme3 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Jimmy Slade's user page to stop adding re-adding stub templates to any NYCS station article that are not stubs. He has blanked his talk page, which indicates he has read the message. I don't know if this will alter his behavior. He has not been very receptive in the past to discussion, and prefers to simply act. Acps110 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
On all pages of NYC Subway stations, are the stub, and South Ferry is not exception. Jimmy Slade (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Opening this stub, user may get acquainted with all transportation system in NYC, through part of that an any the system station. So I'am reverting back to the "yes-stub" status. Jimmy Slade (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation as this is project-specific vs. page-specific. It seems from Jimmy's response above, that he does not understand what a stub article is. We need a better template to link to Transportation in New York City, if we need a template at all for that. Acps110 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the similar issue on other transportation-related pages when I began this one.  Nonetheless, stub-status applies to articles individually, not broader topics or categories.  I suggest Jimmy Slade become familiar with WP:STUB, and then discuss them on a case-by-case (or article-by-article) basis if there are still disagreements.  -Sme3 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Jimmy wants these articles to link to Transportation in New York City. (Mass transit in New York City is an equally-deserving portal/parent article.) There are two logical ways to do this (because mentioning that in the article prose makes little sense without context): 1). a "see also" section with Transportation in New York City as a link. This is impractical because there are also many other links deserving of a "see also" if that one is included. 2). a navigational template. That makes better sense, but I don't like that. I would have to look in the archives of WT:NYCPT, but people were unsupportive of nav templates in subway station articles, as well as navigation to other (unrelated) subway stations.

A different but similar idea would be to link to a portal, as in one for New York City to the right. Portal:London transport is the most developed (and stunning!) city-specific rail transit portal. If someone wants to build one and maintain it for New York City transportation, it's a big job and the job's not gonna go to me. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the link to Mass transit in New York City in the see also section the best. It's simple and a more contextual link than Transportation in NYC. Acps110 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vchohen, if you're listening, please redo MY edit. I forgot how I did it in the first place. It had at the top of the page, Where N & R is, please put back (1), and where the (1) south ferry part is, put the (1) back, that's all.24.193.156.117 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This station is closed for 3 years, therefore it's shown as closed. The same story is with the Cortlandt Street station on this line: it's closed for years and shown as closed. Vcohen (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The two stations are part of the same station complex, and New York City Subway stations within the same complex are always described within the same article. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The MTA plans to reopen the "New South Ferry" station by 2016, and if I'm not mistaken, the existing connection between the South Ferry Loops and the replacement complex is supposed to be temporary. Although I think it wasn't such a great idea for the MTA to replace the loop station, I still say the two complexes should be kept separate. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. This case is similar to the case of the Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway) article that the historic BMT Fifth Avenue Line station was merged into. Vcohen (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment I was the one who originally recommended the merge of the Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line), but other users gave valid reasons for opposing it, so I withdrew my nomination. It was merged anyhow. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they spoke about separate fare controls. Anyway, actually the Atlantic Avenue stations are in one article now. It's strange to see two stations with separate fare controls in one merged article and two stations with one fare control in two separate ones. We should either unmerge the Atlantic Avenue or merge the South Ferry, or do both. Vcohen (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I have found another example. Jay Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway) is an existing station complex, Bridge–Jay Streets (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) is a former station that had a free transfer to one station of the complex, and these two articles are still not merged. I think there are more such examples that are still not merged, so the simplest way is to unmerge the Atlantic Avenue article, and then everything will be consistent. Vcohen (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If the MTA considers South Ferry and Whitehall Street to be one complex, they should be merged. If Jay Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway) was considered one complex with Bridge–Jay Streets (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) when they were in service, then that should be merged too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.5.2 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Based on that, I have merged the articles. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we really call a 200 year old wall prehistoric? 99.108.140.49 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whitehall Station redirects here. That's a potential move target for Whitehall (Amtrak station). I didn't see any discussion of that name in the article itself. Is that usage common? Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=90508&ap=1&Flash
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906105128/http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/about_FTA_929.html to http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/about_FTA_929.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021032203/http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/201002263403/Unearthing-colonial-New-York-South-Ferry-project-yields-65K-artifacts.html to http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/201002263403/Unearthing-colonial-New-York-South-Ferry-project-yields-65K-artifacts.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffhist.htm
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) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
{{Talk:South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)/GA1}

I am attempting to correct the dates on the opening of the South Ferry loops.  The inner opened in 1905.  The outer loop did not open until 1918.
I have only gotten to part of the article. I will do the rest when I get a chance (or someone else can do it).
Source:
https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_West_Side_Line#South_Ferry

Note: nycsubway.org had been around since 1995.  The original wiki article was actually copied from that site.
Allan (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@IRT1904: The information is correct - the outer loop opened in 1905, the inner loop in 1918. Even nycsubway.org says: The "outer loop" platform was the first built at this location. The outer loop was built for the Lexington Avenue Line, but when the West Side Line was opened in 1918, West Side trains took over the outer platform. The inner loop could serve only the Lexington Avenue Line, but it was opened only as a result of the West Side Line being extended down here. I believe the confusion stems from the fact that the inner Lexington Avenue platform and the West Side Line opened at the same time. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)