Talk:Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer station

message: The bus connections section takes up more than half of the article space. Is the whole outline of services necessary? Tinlinkin 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current state is a bit ridiculous. I would however list the buses without their routes and destinations. --NE2 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, get rid of all the bus information. I makes the article look far bloated, and since Wikipedia isn't a go-to source for bus info, then it should be removed. Same goes for all other articles. (Keep, however, the bus connections to airports.) --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, whe should keep the bus connections. We have articles about many of the bus routes. --NE2 05:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in this case, the bus connections should go to a chapter on the Jamaica Center Bus Terminal, which I'm working on in one of my sandboxes. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus connections 

message: None of the websites under the header "External links" is official or authoritative (not even a recognized institute or newspaper or formally published book etc). So, they can have their place under additional sources or references, but they do not belong under External links, do they ?  --Paulbe (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Google is a recognized institute, as is MTA. All the other links are for pictures, so I'd say these are authoritative. Any newspaper sources belong in "References", not "External links", so I don't see anything wrong with the current setup. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This article is not close to being a GA. The lead is too short, there is no history section, the station layout section is not sourced, some claims in the infrastructure section are not sourced, and more information could be provided in the Jamaica Center Bus Terminal section. I also suggest that more work needs to be done on the BMT Canarsie Line article–especially an expansion of the history section, an expansion of the lead, more sources for the extent and service section, and more information with sourcing in the service patterns and chaining sections. I think that both of these nominations should be pulled until they are ready to be reviewed.
--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This would probably be quick-failed under the GA Criteria, specifically criterion #2, for being unsourced.  So I have boldly removed the GA nomination for now.The Canarsie Line article is a little better but still needs a lot of improvement (the section on the 14th Street Tunnel is over-represented for instance). I'll add some comments there. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not ready for GA 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Archer Avenue Lines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Thanks for adding Station ReNEWvation information to articles. I am not sure I would actually call them renovations as the work is almost entirely aesthetic-repainting, removing old signage, etc. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kew Gardens 613, no problem. And good point, these are mostly cosmetic changes, but I guess qns.com covered this work for some reason. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renovation