lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Brown Line (CTA)

message: The link for the Southport station's reference to "Music Box Theatre" connects to information on the Music Box Theatre located in New York City.  This is inaccurate.  For correct information on the Music Box Theatre located in Chicago, on Southport (along the Brown Line of the CTA), visit http://www.musicboxtheatre.com/aboutus.html Kathleentsy 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate link 

message: I moved the "Belmont" graphic to the bottom of the station list because it makes no sense at the top. Kimball is the only northern (outbound) terminus of Brown Line service, so it should be at the top of the list, which starts with Kimball Station first. Belmont is one of two southern (inbound) termini -- the shuttle train stops at Belmont, while "normal" service continues on to the Loop. By this logic, Belmont should be at the inbound/southern/bottom end of the station list. Or, someone who dislikes this slightly inelegant solution can do what they did over at Purple Line (Chicago Transit Authority), and put the destination signs in their own table in a separate section. Wiki Wistah 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Belmont' destination sign 

message: I propose that Ravenswood Branch (CTA) be merged into Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority). The branch lies within the scope of Brown Line and we really don't have enough information there to warrant a split into an article that's probably going to be a stub/start class for a long time. Additionally, the article only has two references, one of which is time sensitive and will no longer be relevant after July 21, 2012. This is pretty much a duplicate of part of the Brown Line article. Lost on  Belmont 3200N (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I was going to suggest this myself.—Jeremy (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Support. Branches of current lines can be covered well enough in the line articles, and I see no reason why this is an exception. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and redirected. There was little in the article that was not already in this article.—Jeremy (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: see: Talk:Purple Line (CTA)#Demolished stations in route maps
Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demolished stations in route maps 
Talk:Bugis MRT station

message: Sorry for the layout, the layout is as follows
                	
L1 Street Level 	
B1 EWL Concourse	Entrance to DTL
B2 EWL Platform 	DTL Concourse
B3 DTL Transfer 	
B5 DTL Platform 	
220.255.47.5 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugis MRT Station 

message: I will not encourage 'Gallery Sections', but you are welcome to modify the picture size to make it more view-able.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures on the station
Talk:Bukit Brown MRT station

message: As seen from this photo in Kim Chuan Depot, Bukit Brown is of side platform configuration. http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9131/bukitbrownsideplatforms.jpg It appears to have 3 tracks though only 2 platforms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.89.186 (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't clear enough. Let's wait till trains drive through the station and see.  - oahiyeel talk 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Platform Type
Talk:Bukit Panjang LRT line

message: The link is no longer available (Error 404). - SpLoT / (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: I think this section should be tagged as written like an advertisement. Any thoughts?--165.82.28.189 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discover the Heart of Bukit Panjang with SMRT Bukit Panjang LRT

message: What happened, why become like that, why the article become $1 LRT instead of Bukit Panjang LRT? 138.75.118.71 (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see . R22-3877 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  $1 LRT?
Talk:C-type (New York City Subway car)

message: I think this article could be improved by putting a photo or two in the article. Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Davidng913 added a image in this edit  173.52.235.103 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos
Talk:Cadillac station

message: Should 'ugliest' really be the word used to describe the station?  It seems so subjective.  Perhaps something like 'esthetically unappealing'.--Braedley 21:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugliest?
Talk:Carroll Street station

message: I think the lat/lon coordinates are off. Someone the Person (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Mention that it's the namesake of a Marathon Infinity level?  The actual station probably meant something to the developers (Double Aught software) since they where in Brooklyn while they developed the scenario.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.178.41 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marathon 
Talk:Central station (MBTA)

message: :Ahhh, so the article titles are wrong, too? Qwirkle (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  has recently reverted back to his prefered version with an edit summary of  Leaving aside his strange idea that this is a question to be discussed at a user’s talk page, especially one where he is obviously unwelcome, this is making a claim that is never true here on Wikipedia: nothing is ever “settled”, consensus can change. Perhaps some other wikiteurs might want to weigh in? Qwirkle (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, would love to hear from others.  The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations is ongoing, if you prefer that over Qwirkle's new one based on copying edit summaries to here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Central Subway (San Francisco)

message: Who are these "transit activists" that criticize this plan?
:Does the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union have a chapter in San Francisco? 72.67.35.97 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an "activist", but the Central Subway route chosen will provide poor service for downtown office workers, instead favoring "tourist" destinations: Moscone, Union Square, and Chinatown. A route closer to the heart of the financial district would likely have higher ridership. 71.134.228.37 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The article states that there will be a station at Washington Square in North Beach.  However, there's zero evidence of this on the project website, which has fairly detailed alignment maps; they just have Chinatown as the northernmost stop.  What's the source for the North Beach station? --Jfruh (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not gonna have a North Beach station. That's just the TBM extraction point. 75.61.95.1 (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Beach? 

message: This whole project was political payback by Mayor Willie Brown to Chinatown activists such as Rose Pak who were upset when the Embarcadero Freeway was torn down in the mid-1990s.  They thought the Embarcadero Freeway was "good Feng Shui" because "it was shaped like a dragon that brought customers to Chinatown".  The Chinatown activists were given this project as a consolation prize.  Keraunos (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Political payback

message: According to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/BANK1N96DQ.DTL , federal funding seems to be falling into place (though not yet finalized). AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: SF Weekly did an investigative report in April 2014 about the project's massive cost overruns and lack of structure to track estimated vs. actual costs. http://www.sfweekly.com/2014-04-02/news/muni-central-subway-whistleblower-budget/full/ cipherswarm (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost and funding 

message: The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section.  More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.
Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.
I am going to place a  tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.
If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this system a "premetro"?
Talk:Chalk Farm tube station

message: Judging from TfL photo archives there has been one exit from the lifts in the middle of the Haverstock Hill facade and a separate entrance to the booking hall at the north end. AFAIR they have both been boarded up for decades but seem to have been in some use untill at least 1944. I do remember that in the early 90s the lifts would open a small gap towards the defunct exit hall before the proper doors opened towards the ticket office.
I always wondered why they never reversed the oneway passage ways at platform level.92.201.205.15 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that there is one publicly accessible entrance. Worth looking into — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haverstock Hill entrance
Talk:Chambers Street – World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line)

message: Since this station is connected to the IRT station Park Place, would it make more sense to have one article, with the name "Park Place/Chambers Street-World Trade Center (New York City Subway)?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DReifGalaxyM31 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the name of the article. See WP:NC-NYCS. Content-wise, I see no problem, even with the odd configuration of this station. (We do have Canal Street (New York City Subway), which is similarly odd.) Tinlinkin (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging this article with [[Park Place (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)]]
Talk:Chambers Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

message: Oookay, I've been using this train station ever since I was a little kid and it's *never* not been under construction. So, is it true construction started in 2007? I find that very hard to believe I AM TARA (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The construction project mentioned in the article (ADA compliance, etc.) did start in 2007. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Changi Airport MRT station

message: *Unfeasible (1983): https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19831117-1.2.75
*New study (1985): https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19850514-1.2.33.1
*Still being studied (1988):
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19880319-1.2.2
Dumping a few sources here for those who wish to work on the article further.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Changi Airport 

message: The redirect Airport MRT station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Airport MRT station]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Charles Pearson

message: Although there's nothing inherently objectionable about the article, several statements (even a whole paragraph) seem to need references. Recognising the increasing congestion in the City and its rapidly growing suburbs... is an example. The Squicks (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're all covered now. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, great. The Squicks (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Charles Yerkes

message: Yerkes should be mentioned in Philadelphia related articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yerkes was born in 1837 in Northern Liberties, just north of the city limit. When he was 17, in 1854, the Liberties and the entire County of Philadelphia became part of the city by theAct of Consolidation, 1854.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia
Talk:Chicago station (CTA Brown and Purple Lines)

message: Station is shared by two lines and would be consistent with naming standards of other 'L' stations that share lines—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTD (talk • contribs)  11:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did it. I saw no objections, but if there are any, somebody should've spoke up. ----DanTD (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal; Chicago (CTA Brown and Purple Lines) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chicago (CTA Red Line station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: A few IP users (or one person using multiple IPs) have been changing bus numbers so that they're within code tags.  This seems to go against the spirit of MOS:FONTFAMILY, so I've removed them from this page, and I'll remove them from other pages where I see it; I'll link back here when I do.  YorkshireLad (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code tags in bus routes
Talk:Chigwell tube station

message: One staff member was on duty Sunday 4th November 2007, so not completely unmanned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil060902 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff 

message: Most Underground stations now do not have ticket offices, so this section needs changing. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The station today section
Talk:Chinese Garden MRT station

message: "Chinese Garden MRT Station was formerly known as Jurong Lake, built on 5 November 1988. The station name was changed on August 1985."
How can that be possible? Last I checked, the Clementi to Lakeside section opened in 1988. The first MRT line, the North South Line, only opened in 1987. How could the Chinese Garden MRT Station have been renamed in 1985?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.131.253 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 
Talk:Chiswick Park tube station

message: Given that Chiswick Park station is in Ealing Borough, is it technically correct to describe it as being in Chiswick? Isn't it more accurate to say that it is in Acton? Pmcray
Thinking about it i'd say its more in Gunnersbury. Simply south 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It isn't technically correct to call it a tube station. Although it is part of the London Underground system, it is very much on the surface. In fact, the District Line is not a tube line at all. The small part of it that is below ground was built by the cut and cover method. Therefore none of its stations can be described as tube stations. The London Underground as a whole has been known colloquially as The Tube for a long time (again, this designation is inaccurate in the case of the District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City Lines) so, while it is incorrect to refer to Chiswick Park as a tube station, it could be considered appropriate to call it a Tube station (ie. a station belonging to The Tube, as opposed to a station constructed in a tube tunnel). 83.104.249.240 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiswick Park is not a tube station
Talk:Chrystie Street Connection

message: I corrected the above problems of poor context of the opening of the article, which lacked any note as to geographical direction of line or of the lettered lines.
This is what another editor is removing without adequate explanation:
The Chrystie Street Connection is a major connecting line of the New York City Subway, it runs north-south under Chrystie Street from Houston Street to Canal Street. It is one of the few connections between lines of the (former) BMT and IND divisions. Currently, the B and the D lines run along this line. To date the Chrystie Street Connection's two parts are the only part of the long-planned Second Avenue Subway to be completed and opened to service. As a road, Chrystie Street extends northward beyond Houston Street to become Manhattan's Second Avenue. 
The editor removed this improvement, adding the comment that there are two lines running there.  Yes, that is something that I put into the opening of the article.Dogru144 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you seem to be confused about the difference between a line and a service. A line is the physical structure and a service is the train that operates over that structure. The two lines I was referring are the Express tracks that run to Grand Street, and the split from the Local tracks that continues to Essex Street. In effect it is two lines that head in different directions. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are improvements being removed?
Talk:Church Avenue station (IND Culver Line)

message: Would be nice to have a list of at least one or two movies taken at the station.
GK tramrunner (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have there been any? Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies taken at station
Talk:Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail

message: Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject!  JubalHarshaw 18:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was able to create a number of linear maps of a few of the lines and am wondering if there's a way to balance the article so that the top part of each section aligns with the top of the map?
The document looks a little awry at the present time, and would like to maintain the maps if at all possible, without making the rest of the document look incorrectly formatted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allamericanbear (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White space and balancing of the document. 

message: I am so glad I found this page!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is so awesome! 

message: Many of the plans here are historical/previously proposed and can easily be introduced into Buffalo Metro Rail. This organization just isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Buffaboy talk 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not merge. Yes, the article needs work, but the CRTC is a completely separate independent entity from the NFTA. Also, merging the two would make Buffalo Metro Rail too long. Useddenim (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment What if we rename the article as List of proposed Buffalo Metro Rail lines? Then we can implicitly refer to the CRTC within both articles, but find neutral references that support the plans. Buffaboy talk 03:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A better title would be Proposed Buffalo Metro Rail lines, given that it's an article rather than a simple list, and would also put it in line with such things as :Category:Proposed London Underground lines, etc. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea, should we move forward with this plan or wait for a broader consensus? Buffaboy talk 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this title as well, because there is too much to merge, but the article needs some cleanup. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Buffalo Metro Rail 
Talk:City Hall station (BMT Broadway Line)

message: Who added a cleanup tag? I dont see anything wrong with the article's information. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 
Talk:Clapham Common tube station

message: It was very interesting to find an article on this station.  I lived in Clapham Common as a child many years ago and well remember that there used to be a drinking fountain near to the station entrance.  I used to regularly drink from the fountain when returning from play on the Common, the edge of which begins behind the station, a short distance beyond the trees.  (In passing, there was -- and may still be -- a cattle trough belonging to the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association located in that area on the pavement at the rear of the station).
If you look at the photo accompanying the article (Clapham Common Tube Station Exterior – Oct 2007.jpg) you can see a rectangular black tile outline on the curved exterior wall, partially covered by a board with a map of the Tube system. There is a step on the pavement below it which, to the modern eye, does not appear to serve any function.  This is where the fountain used to be.  There was a bronze sculpture of a female figure offering water to another mounted above a stone bowl and plinth.  As far as I remember, it was removed in the late 1970s.  First, a steel plate was put over the bowl of the fountain, preventing anyone drinking from the tap and then, after several years, the stone bowl and sculpture were removed.  I was pretty irritated at the time by what seemed to me to be petty bureaucratic vandalism and the erasure of a small part of my childhood.  There are always those who want to rip out and destroy rather than finding a way to preserve...
I wonder why it is, that having so comprehensively wiped out nearly all trace of the fountain, the relevant authorities should have left a useless step in place for several decades.  A great cult of ‘Health and Safety’ has grown in recent years in the UK, with many ridiculous instances being reported in the national press.  I am amazed that some over-zealous official has not carried out a Risk Assessment and deemed the step to be a serious danger to passing pedestrians.  Of course, it is nothing of the kind.
I don’t suppose that any description of this fountain can be placed in the article without cited sources. Perhaps someone may have an earlier photograph showing the fountain in situ. I am reporting the existence of the fountain here on the Talk page as I feel that some mention of it should be made while there are still people alive who remember it. Freeman501 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fountain at Clapham Common Tube Station
Talk:Clapham North tube station

message: Came across this - also affecting Clapham Common Station. Can this be tagged or monitored as appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform upgrade