# Talk:WTC Cortlandt station

The article says, "One of the Vickers mosaics is preserved in the New York Transit Museum." Is the one in the picture the mentioned one? Vcohen (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Here is the same part of the museum on Google Maps Street View. Vcohen (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And this seems to be one of these mosaics while still in the station. Vcohen (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a Robert Fulton boat. So, I am not sure, but this is probably not the station's mosaic. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, which of my links do you mean? The last one is certainly from this station. Do you mean these are two different boats? Vcohen (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh. It isn't Fulton Street after all. I was mistaken; I mistook this station's mosaic with the mosaic in the Fulton Street Lexington Avenue Line station. In retrospect, this could be the preserved Vickers mosaic. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cortlandt Street (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111072030/http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsoct07/Subway.html to http://tribecatrib.com/news/newsoct07/Subway.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816151255/http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160321_1345_CPOC.pdf to http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160321_1345_CPOC.pdf
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) 23:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, we have a few options for the page title.  
This is a situation where it might be better to expand the title a little, as station signage says "World Trade Center".
--Captian Cavy (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
What is there to discuss? The source says “WTC Cortlandt” is the correct name. Cards84664 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, the signage conflicts with the station name. --Captian Cavy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok? This isn’t the only case of that happening. Cards84664 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I’ll pick this back up once the pictures get uploaded. Cards84664 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
WTC is short for "World Trade Center". Generally we don't use abbreviations to describe the full title of an object unless they are primarily known by their abbreviation, per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. I don't see any evidence that the "WTC" abbreviation is the proper name of the station (some of the signs and media spell out the full name), so we should use the full "World Trade Center" title. That's also why the previous name of this article was "Cortlandt Street" and not "Cortlandt St.". epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
And I see the MTA refers to this station as "WTC Cortlandt Street". That makes things more confusing. The wall signs say "World Trade Center", the columns say "WTC Cortlandt", and all this time the media have been saying "Cortlandt Street". epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
At this point we might end up with World Trade Center–Cortlandt Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) --Captian Cavy (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 We have a few options:
World Trade Center–Cortlandt Street
World Trade Center–Cortlandt
WTC–Cortlandt
WTC Cortlandt
WTC Cortlandt Street
I think the fourth one is what the MTA is going with. Especially given data entry 328 here. epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. It should go to WTC Cortlandt.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow I didn't think the MTA would actually update that data so quickly. But yes, I agree that it should be #4. Also, the source on the article exclusively says WTC Cortlandt and even instructs conductors to not announce it as the fully spelled out "World Trade Center". I do wish the MTA would be consistent with signage, but until we have a decent timeframe to determine a common name, it should be WTC Cortlandt. -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs)  02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): The article is readable and well-written.  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The article is generally well-layed out and is effectively summarized in the lede. 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources): In general, it looks good. I note that there are some appropriately used primary sources and that nycsubway.org seems to be equivalent to a citation of a local historical group.  c (OR): Some things are cited to images that I think would be best cited elsewhere. However, it is only a matter of opening the image and counting what appears, so I think it is acceptable.  d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues were found with Earwig. 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): No major aspects seem to be missed. b (focused): Th article seems to be reasonably focused and give due weight to recent events. 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: This article is about a non-controversial topic, which it presents with a NPOV. 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: I found no recent edits indicative of content disputes. 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): All images are either appropriately licensed or used with appropriate non-free use rationale.  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): All images have appropriate captions. However, none of the images have alt-text. 

Overall: Overall, it is a very good article.
Pass/Fail: 

There is currently an RfC to discuss the naming of articles for NYC Subway stations. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf and Kew Gardens 613: I don't think we need a separate section for the station layout diagram, and the description of the station. As far as I'm concerned, these subjects are one and the same. epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be very little on what happened in the station on the day itself aside from the damage substantiated. Was there any injuries or fatalities inside station or was it full evacuated before anything could occur (was it even open at the time)? Some minor details answering these questions would be helpful.86.176.125.223 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to heroic train crews, there were no fatalities in the New York City Subway on 9/11.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is the article the WTC Cortdlandt station, why does the station layout show two other stations? These layout diagrams are already kinds of confusing as it is to then be showing an entire complex of separate stations. In fact, there is a note further down that station that makes clear that there are separately controlled for fares. I get that they are all connected, but that's what the "connections" field is for in a station article infobox. Criticalthinker (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)