Talk:Euclid Avenue station (IND Fulton Street Line)

message: Excluding the lede, over half this article is devoted to covering 76th Street, which may or may not exist. It's a fascinating subject, but I'm not convinced that it belongs here. Euclid Avenue's only relationship to the topic is that it's the next station west. What about turning 76th Street (IND Fulton Street Line) into an article, or failing that merging a summary into IND Fulton Street Line? Mackensen (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we've ever written a stand-alone article about a station that was proposed but never completed. Most of the confirmed partially-built stations are adjacent to existing stations, such as South 4th Street, Houston Street−Second Avenue, Fulton Street−Utica Avenue and others. Those "ghost" stations were built as part of the existing station, and thus logically are in the article of the existing station. 76th Street is unique from those other stations in that it would have been a normal local station, and not part of a junction with another station that already exists. The only other station like it that I can think of is the proposed Northern Boulevard station of the IND 63rd Street Line, which is covered in the 21st Street–Queensbridge article; again, an unbuilt station with an infrastructure provision that is near a station that was completed. The difference is the extensive lore surrounding 76th Street. (Was it built? Was it partially built? Is the wall a false wall? Was it built and then forgotten and flooded? etc...) There is already a section in the Fulton Line article (Second System planned route) which discusses the extension that 76th Street would have been part of, and links to the 76th Street section of this article. I would argue that the information should stay here since Euclid is the next station west and the only existing station that would lead to 76th Street, and since the extensive trackwork that leads to the alleged 76th Street station is normally considered to be part of the Euclid Avenue station. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is in regards to the GA review, I've withdrawn the nomination for now. It does seem like the article needs a little more information on the Euclid Avenue station itself. I'll renominate it after the issue has been resolved. Also, the section about the proposed 76th Street station is in line with the sections about never-built extensions in the articles Tdorante10 noted above. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

text:   I think that this article is ready, but if you disagree, the GAN can be removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's fine. Thanks for re-adding the GAN. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street 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/20130313005345/http://www.stationreporter.net:80/ctrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/ctrain.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030103057/http://www.stationreporter.net/aleff.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/aleff.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113023917/http://www.stationreporter.net/arock.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/arock.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street 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/20150807065656/http://www.nyc.gov/html/mopd/downloads/pdf/accessibility_guide.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/mopd/downloads/pdf/accessibility_guide.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the  template, which was located near the phrase . "Complex" was an objective statement used to describe no less than three sets of tracks. It's not in the list of examples at WP:PEACOCK, which describes words such as . But anyway, I replaced "quite complex" with "intricate" instead because that is definitely objective. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better. My issue was the use of "quite", which is definitely not befitting of a neutral encyclopedia. SounderBruce 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock term 

message: The caption on the image of the stairs says "This view is facing eastward toward the fake cinder block wall". Why is it fake? Is it fake cinder blocks? Or a fake wall? Or is it real? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more accurate to call it a false wall or temporary wall. It is a real wall, but it was designed to be removed when construction of the Subway past the wall began. Or it was designed to (temporarily) hide the 76th Street station site, if you believe it was actually built. Tdorante10 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: It was filled in with dirt past there. The water table level is high in this area, in this was a factor. I read an article in the BDE that showed such an issue between ENY and Euclid. I presume that construction started past there, but was stopped and filled in as a result.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This being the case, I recommend removing the word "fake". A cinder block wall is a cinder block wall, "I refute it thus!". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done that. I think the intended term was either "false wall" or "temporary wall" (as Tdorante10 said above), but obviously it's a wall and it's permanent (for now, I guess, unless the FBI decides to investigate it). epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake?