This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
I have just modified one external link on
Hunts Point Avenue (IRT Pelham 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:
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.
I've seen a few of these articles, and have always wondered what the justification for the use of bold text is when dealing with train numbers. Would you be able to elucidate? After all, it seems to violate
MOS:BOLD, and I'm not clear what it's trying to highlight?
@
Epicgenius: Is there a concrete reason this is done? I have always done it because that is how it was done in other articles.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk) 00:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)reply
No concrete reason. I did it for the same reason as you. Actually, during my first few years of editing, these articles all had a bunch of MOS violations such as
MOS:AT (in regards to
spaced en-dashes and
spaced slashes). These editors are mostly inactive now, though.
epicgenius (
talk) 00:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Then I'm not convinced (at the moment) as to why we are arbitrarily bolding text mid-prose (the infobox, for instance, doesn't appear to bold it) so would recommend we start a new trend of not bolding such train numbers....
The Rambling Man (
Staying alive since 2005!) 06:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)reply
"<6>" my ignorance (again I suspect) but what are those <> doing there? It appears to link to 6d??
"This station opened in 1919 as part of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line." you could use that expanded version in the first sentence instead of going straight into IRT Pelham Line...
I also think that conciseness would be better here, rather than writing out the full name in the very first sentence. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company no longer exists, and it would be excessively long to write [[IRT Pelham Line|Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line]].
epicgenius (
talk) 20:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Foxhurst is mentioned in the infobox, and only in the infobox...
"Vickers-designed mosaic friezes in muted shades of blue, grey and beige, with occasional bits of pale pink" I've never heard of Vickers, could we just refer to him by complete name? And "bits" is a somewhat unencyclopedic term...
That's my first set of comments, so I'll put the nomination on hold while we discuss these points. Cheers.
The Rambling Man (
Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Kew Gardens 613 I responded above re: bold numbers. I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep doing it this way because it's the way it's been done on other articles, especially if there's nothing in the MOS to support it (in fact, the opposite...) Any thoughts?
The Rambling Man (
Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay, nice work. I think we're good to go here, and thanks for the sensible approach to the bold numbering. If the consensus there is to restore it, who am I to argue, but best to get that consensus. Cheers also to
epicgenius for opining. I'm passing the nomination, well done.
The Rambling Man (
Staying alive since 2005!) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply