Talk:Grand Central Terminal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

GCT North

Hi Epicgenius and PRRfan, I think it's important to describe the individual tunnels as either north-south or east-west, which will be a lot clearer to readers who don't know how Manhattan's grid works. I also really wish we could put in a map, but you gander that our only map (one published evidently in an MTA pamphlet) is protected by copyright? In that case, could we work on one? Would it be beneficial to construct something to use {{mapframe}}? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point on north-south and east-west. (I guess we can use those cardinal directions as stand-ins for the more geographically precise north-northeast/south-southwest etc.?) And you're right about a map, the production of which, sadly, is beyond my ken. PRRfan (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I can probably create the KML/JSON file for it. I'll need a few days since I have to get to class now, but will probably be able to do it over the weekend. epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius, that's one of few things I have no clue on but really want to learn to do. PRRfan - yeah pretty much every NYC wiki article seems to just say n, s, w, e; it'd be a lot to explain the difference in every single last article, I guess they just leave that to the Manhattan article, etc. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ and PRRfan: OK, I've created a JSON map for testing purposes: epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Not sure why I can't get it blue all the way across. Will add some more points/details later... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Because the black passage is actually "L" shaped, and the blue passage only connects the black and green passages. I fixed it now. epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I added entrances based on the map, though it makes it look like the 45th street passage is too short? Also, how do I make these pushpin icons smaller and with visible labels? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: (1) I moved the coordinate of the western terminus of the 45th Street segment. So it should be fine.
(2) Try adding "marker-size":"small" right after "name": "foo" in the properties bracket, but you need a comma before "marker-size"
(3) I'm certain that the labels can't be added in the mapbox directly. However, you can set each coordinate to have |type3=point, |type4=point, etc, then put |coord3=coordinate and set |marker3= to 3. But there will have to be a note in the caption. Also, I don't know what will happen with the size function if you do this. epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. However I already tried the simpler |type2=point|coord2={{coord|40.754543|-73.977568}} for these points and it won't display; I believe we either have to use that system or the raw code, I don't think they'll work together... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I added it here because it's 90% there at least. I still think it needs labels, even if they have to be like the one at Rockwood Hall, only visible if you click on the map. Also, can you please add a simple box to represent Grand Central's station building? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Impressive work, folks. PRRfan (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I think you should make the box for GCT half as big; the station house (not including the train shed/tracks) only spans from 42nd to about halfway between 43rd and 44th, not 45th. Is that okay? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So do you know how/if there's any way to make the clickable labels on the points like the second map at Briarcliff Manor Public Library? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Something like this? epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly; I don't think the numbers help unless we can make them 45, 46W 46E, 47, 48... I meant when you click on the library map and click on the points, there is room for a label and optional image. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What do we think about replacing the color labels ("in orange") with a line segment in the appropriate color? PRRfan (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we make them some circles perhaps? The lines are very thin. They're visible on my phone, but not really at all on my desktop. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Another option: color the legend text. PRRfan (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Or we can just use colorboxes, like the infobox does. Coloring the text leads to issues for some people. epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The colorboxes look really good on the desktop view, but pretty bad on mobile. I think the circular icons display the most professionally and clearly on Mobile and Desktop. Check it out on both. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: We might not be seeing the same thing in that case. I tested on mobile view using Samsung Galaxy S5, Google Pixel 2 (regular and XL), and iPhone X options in Google Chrome, as well as on actual mobile devices. The only thing I see is that the lines (in the captions) are centered. But this can be easily fixed. epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose most of it relates to the fact that it's centered. Can you fix it? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, let me test it out. epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Aw man, it didn't work! epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that works to left-align, but there's a lot of spacing and the font size is even smaller. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: What about this (second row, third from left)? epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It still seemingly has an entire line between each existing line of text, not sure why... Can you try making the colorboxes smaller and see if that helps? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(←) Hmm, it's still doing it... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's fixed now. I think it's a problem with tl:unbulleted list giving it spacing. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

{{colorbull}} looks better on mobile; now colorbox displays them too close together! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: @PRRfan: are there any objections to implementing the second row, third from left map, which uses {{colorbull}}? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, sounds great! PRRfan (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Potentially useful

See this link, definitely dispels some ideas I've seen that the depot/station were smaller than the terminal... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding largest train station in country

@Midwestman1986, Ɱ, and PRRfan: I have a couple issues with this recent edit.

• First, if Kansas City Union Station is the second largest in the country, then why is it being mentioned here, and not at KC Union Station's article? We don't usually list runner-ups to superlatives. For instance, since GCT is the third busiest station in North America, we don't mention the fourth or fifth busiest stations. Since GCT is the world's largest station by number of platforms, we don't mention the second largest station.
• Second, the sources being combined don't actually mention that GCT is the largest station in the US, followed by KC Union Station (a violation of WP:SYNTH). Ref 9 says that KC Union is the second largest station in the US, but doesn't mention what the largest station is. And ref 8 doesn't say anything about being the largest station in the US, but rather, that it was the largest in the world upon its completion.
• Third, blogs aren't reliable sources, per WP:RS, and ref 8 is a blog. In any case, ref 8 cites its info from more reputable sources, so I replaced Ref 8 with the Roberts NY Times ref from 2013.
• Not really an issue but if this info is in the lead, it should be in the body as well.

While I do think the edit is in good faith, these are just a few issues that I think need to be fleshed out. epicgenius (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right. It's possible many sources only rate based on number of platforms because square footage is so iffy. Do we count train sheds or rail yards? Do we count connecting passageways in Grand Central, even if those passageways are wholly other buildings (like Grand Central Market)? Do we count office buildings or baggage buildings? Do we count former stations, or former records? With all of these things considered, there are many contenders, especially Michigan Central Station or 30th Street Station each with about half a million square feet, or the old Penn Station, which took up about two city blocks... ɱ (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Split of history section

@Ɱ, PointsofNoReturn, PRRfan, and Kew Gardens 613: I've now split the history section to History of Grand Central Terminal, which is an article now. Please feel free to make improvements there. epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks — and, incidentally, kudos to you and Ɱ and the others who are doing such impressive heavy lifting on this topic. PRRfan (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated for creating the spinoff article and history summary. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I will look through the history section when I have a chance. I have spent my day scanning a checked out report on the planned NE Bronx Subway extension from Lehman. I took many pictures of NYCT committee reports from 1994-95 yesterday and will add information from those. When do you plan on nominating this article? Thanks for your work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. @Kew Gardens 613: I don't know. Maybe soon, within a few weeks. I'm pretty busy with work, but I will check to see if we're missing anything from the main GCT article. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I just did a quick reference check. No material is un-cited. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple image

Graybar Passage

Grand Central Market's interior and its Lexington Avenue facade between the Graybar Building and Grand Hyatt New York

@Ɱ: I think {{multiple image}} looks awkward if you stack another image above/below the multiple-image template and they aren't the same width. I didn't realize that I messed up with the multiple image template until later.

Something like the example at right may work.

The MetLife Building was completed in 1963 above Grand Central Terminal.

The Main Concourse in 1968, featuring large advertisements, blackout paint, and a Merrill Lynch office (I couldn't place the original here for copyright reasons)

To an extent, I also disagree that multiple image templates can only be used for highlighting different aspects of the same thing. If the two images are vastly different widths (e.g. one is a portrait, another is a landscape) and are in the same section, then I definitely think that they could go into a multiple-image template. For instance, the template to the right shows two images in the "Decline" section. Another example is File:GCT_Dec_4,_2018_(45452001254).jpg and File:Grand Central Terminal - Sectional View 1939.jpg (which you just removed). They both show passenger improvements, it's just one is a picture and the other is a rendering/ epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We definitely hold different opinions on formatting images. I never find images to look awkward at different widths or lengths; different images from different cameras or cropped differently will have different proportions. We should typically use the default sizes for images, so images displayed under tl:multiple image should still be approximately 220px each. I also strongly believe tl:multiple image should only be used for a set of very closely related images, like the interior and exterior of the market; it has options for a combined header and/or footer for that reason. It's not meant to be used as a tool for formatting less-related images to better-fit. Especially the balcony and 1968 Concourse photo have no theme joining them, and the whispering gallery and cutaway have very little, and display just fine separately; there's tons of room in that section anyhow. Lmk what you think. ɱ (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I like how it displays now on the desktop, will check a laptop/phone too. ɱ (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, if we bring up the VE citation bug, we might also want to bring up to people that tl:multiple image displays badly on mobile, so the whole "(left)" and "(right)" thing (for example on the info booth photos) doesn't work, the images stack on top of each other instead! ɱ (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: For image sizes, then, I guess we can move images around if they aren't related. They don't have to be right next to each other, or on top or below.

I knew that the multiple image templates stacked vertically on mobile displays. That's a feature, not a bug, caused by the width of the phone. Otherwise the images would look really small. epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well there should/could be a way for mobile users to slide the photos a little to see everything, or maybe some template that changes "left" and "right" to "top" and "bottom" for mobile mode? ɱ (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I'm not exactly sure. I think something like that would use a mobile CSS class. But I've never actually tried forcing a caption to display based on whether it was a mobile device or not. However, having something like that would probably have large implications. For instance, the text could be changed so mobile users wouldn't be able to see things that desktop users can see.

You could probably give it a try and ask at Template talk:Multiple image. epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Campbell...bar?

Re this edit, @Ɱ: you're right about "ringed with" so thanks for reverting that, but I'm pretty sure the bar formerly known as the Campbell Apartment is now just "The Campbell". PRRfan (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The distinction between areas is mentioned in the second paragraph here, as well as the third para of the link you provided and a few other places.

Also btw, I originally had the spiral staircase caption similar to your version, but I had changed it after some consideration, because even though your/my old wording is more concise, it talks about the staircase first (which is not present in either photo), which is pretty awkward; I think it's worth it to be a little more lengthy and first introduce the images' subjects before going into that detail. Also the photos are there for much more than talking about the staircase! How it is now, it appears to focus solely on teaching the reader about the staircases, not the overall significance of those booths, which is pretty huge for the Main Concourse booth. We could even leave that staircase part out, just leaving its existing mention in the prose.

Sure, that makes sense. PRRfan (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, and with all the great copyediting so far! ɱ (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just happy to help; you and @Epicgenius: are doing great work. PRRfan (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

52 mph?

I deleted this from the "Track improvements" section: "New track infrastructure allowed maximum train speeds of 52 miles per hour (84 km/h)"; it's unsupported by the cite, and there's no way any train moving 52 mph would have been allowed within miles of the station. PRRfan (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good explanation of speed limits in Manhattan for trains. The source is not citable, but it does say that a speed limit of 52 mph is not possible in Manhattan. [1] PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion for ESA

@Ɱ, Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and PRRfan: As you all know, a key component of East Side Access is the expansion of the station for the LIRR. I do not think that the plan is adequately covered in the article. For instance, there will be at least two new street entrances–at Park Avenue and 47th Street, and Madison Avenue and 48th Street, and there will be a connection to the 47th Street Cross-passageway. [2] and [3] Any thoughts?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, ESA doesn't have many third-party sources like newspapers reporting on the intricacies of Grand Central's changes/new concourse, etc.? I'm hesitant to have a section covering all of the new planned areas, passages, entrances, connections, etc. just based on internal MTA docs and maps, and some of these plans could change, especially if this project gets further drawn out. I think the renovation section covers enough of the relevant details, and the article on ESA should cover more. ɱ (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, Well, I think the Trains article or MTA docs would be a good place to start. It isn't in the ESA article because that's supposed to be a quick overview, and as far as I'm concerned, the GCT article should be where all the GCT entrance improvements are detailed. epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the Description section of the ESA article should have a subsection detailing the new concourses/station/pedestrian tunnels, separate from the details on the tracks/train tunnels they're installing. ɱ (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If it will be part of the station, why should it be separate? Here is another link [4].

I added some info to the ESA page. epicgenius (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change

What do y'all think about this: User:Ɱ/sandbox?

My thoughts: I think it barely makes the infobox longer, moves the exterior photo out of that random spot and into a spot worthy of its importance, and shows the train shed, as well as the iconic concourse, ceiling, clock. It should free up room in the article for other photos; we have plenty of other important ones that could replace these in the article body. I wish Glory of Commerce would fit, but most Commons images of it are low-res, low-quality or very square, not fitting into this montage very well. Any thoughts? ɱ (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, I think the photo montage looks good. The platforms are definitely important, even though they aren't the first thing most people associate with GCT, because the platforms are the main part of the terminal. epicgenius (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay let's do it. ɱ (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Grand Central c 1968.jpg

File:Grand Central c 1968.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Figured something like this might come up! Will address tomorrow or the next day when I'm back . ɱ (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Depth of M42

We should consider changing M42's depth:

190 ft:

• https://newyork.cbslocal.com/guide/inaccessible-new-york-behind-the-scenes-at-grand-central-terminal/
• https://penneyvanderbilt.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/inaccessible-new-york-behind-the-scenes-at-grand-central-terminal-cbs-new-york/

109 ft:

• https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/man-and-machine-both-beautiful-meet-at-grand-central/?mtrref=undefined
• https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2008-03-03-0803020167-story.html

105 ft:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=EpdwcewZ2rgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=dynamo&f=false

10 stories:

• https://interestingengineering.com/9-secret-spaces-hidden-under-our-cities (video)

9 flights/13 stories:

• https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/in-24-hours-new-york-train-track/index.html
• https://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/north-america/death-fame-and-fear-dark-world-under-new-york-streets/news-story/0f45cd9fcf8405edc22e93339c20614d

Other:

• "Brucker said railroad experts place the Dynamo Room 109 feet below the lower concourse, or nearly 200 feet below street level. Frank J. Prial, Jr., an architect with Beyer Blinder Belle, the firm responsible for Grand Central's recent restoration, insists it's not quite so deep. Both agree, however, that before the basement of the World Trade Center was excavated, this spot claimed distinction as the deepest rock cut in Manhattan." (https://web.archive.org/web/20041205052533/http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/090901/09secrets.html)

I think I've spotted other claims too; we should probably say sources conflict. Bruckner is not known to have been the most reliable source. ɱ (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Though I don't think there's a definite depth, I'm pretty sure 190 is a typo. All of the other sources give figures around the neighborhood of 109 feet (i.e. 105 feet or 10-13 stories). The lower concourse is definitely not 91 feet under street level, unless street level is the top of the Park Avenue Viaduct. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

True, and that further shows Bruckner as an unreliable source. Can we change it to approximately 109 feet or 10-13 stories (depending on the source)? or would you prefer just being bold and changing it to 109? ɱ (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: OK, I've added the clarifying notes. I didn't say explicitly that 190 feet is an outlier, because that would have been synthesis, but it is in a hidden comment. epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. ɱ (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

80,000 square feet

Why do you think so many sources call the Main Concourse 80,000 square feet? It's on page 92 of Gateway to a Million Lives, it's on this thing, page 12 of this, here, and here. This can't be right, can it... ɱ (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple images for the departure boards

Clockwise from top left:
• The original blackboard (kept as a relic in the Biltmore Room)
• The 1985–1996 Omega Board
• The 1996–2019 departure board in 2019
• Newest LCD boards in 2019

@Ɱ: I think we should probably put the multiple image template for the departure boards on two lines, like this. Currently the images are too small with a total image width of 520. The problem is that not all of these images are the same size, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm increasingly fed up with the multiple images template. The live version actually already displays it how you want it on mobile, though the footer caption then would need to be altered. Yet your version's mobile view shows four images in one column, again with a misleading caption. I agree that yours is slightly better for the desktop view, but it seems worse for mobile. We need fixes. ɱ (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

All right. How about something like the below? It preserves the current layout but makes the images larger. Not sure what to do with the text "left to right", though. epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The terminal's primary departure board is located on the south side of the concourse, installed directly atop the two sets of ticket windows. The board, colloquially known as the "Big Board", shows the track and status of arriving and departing trains.

Left to right:
• The original blackboard (kept as a relic in the Biltmore Room)
• The 1985–1996 Omega Board
• The 1996–2019 departure board in 2019
• Newest LCD boards in 2019

There have been five departure boards used over the terminal's history: the 1913–1967 chalkboard, the 1967–1985 Solari board, the 1985–1996 Omega Board, the 1996–2019 LCD board, and the 2019 fully digital display.

Do you know of any way to have a template that will display different things, whether viewed on mobile or desktop? If not, do you know of anyone capable perhaps of creating something like that? ɱ (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the increased size makes it possible to drop the whole left-right thing, so we should be good now. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of the words "currently", "now", "today", etc

@Ɱ: I don't think we should use these words: "currently", "now", "today". Per MOS:DATED they are likely to become outdated, especially if there's no date attached to the sentences where these words are used. Also, if a statement is currently true, the word "currently" is not necessary in many cases. E.g. The space is currently occupied by a conductor lounge and a smaller sports facility with a single tennis court. epicgenius (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DATED is written to avoid outdated statements in most articles, with little editor traffic and no dedicated article writers. This article has at least four or five. As a history writer, it's important to differentiate past from present. A sentence like this : "The room's benches were previously located in the former waiting room, Vanderbilt Hall." isn't right to me, because the waiting room was never called Vanderbilt Hall when it was a waiting room. It's simple and easy to use "waiting room, now Vanderbilt Hall", a name which I don't think will change in the next century.

As well, a statement like "Only Tracks 102–112 and 114–115 are used for passenger service." does not tell as much as "Today, only Tracks 102–112 and 114–115 are used for passenger service." We don't know when it changed, but the first statement doesn't indicate that it ever changed, while the second does. ɱ (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, I see what you mean. However, some editor who is not aware of this may put up tags such as {{when?}} even though the information is evidently correct today (as someone visiting GCT itself may observe). I also agree with your comments about the nuances of the word "today" in certain contexts. This may also come up at FAC. I think there should be a compromise somewhere, but don't know what that might be. epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

History is never without many holes, and even though {{when}} tags may seem appropriate, an answer can't always be found. It took me ages to even find most of the dates present in the article right now, and even then we've had to decide between multiple stated figures and dates. Some may think that this can never be an FA with such gaps in knowledge, but until/unless time machines are invented, those gaps will exist in all histories of the terminal. ɱ (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Purchased?

As a continuation of this discussion, I haven't found any government or MTA pages stating the current owner is anything except Midtown TDR/Trackage Ventures. The only sources really mentioning the purchase are news from around the time of the deal (Nov. 13-16, 2018), almost a year ago, most without any update as to if the deal went through. I think some journalists took the news too far to say that it has been finalized, because I can't find anything in MTA meeting pages, reputable newspapers, or anywhere else.

• this NYC zoning map shows Midtown Trackage Ventures as the owner
• this NYC list of documents, including property purchases, doesn't include anything from that date or in the stated dollar amount. ɱ (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Central Terminal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to start this review - at a quick read it looks like a great article, but it is heavy so it could take a while! Great work, though. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for offering to take up this huge article. I'm going to ping @Ɱ, PointsofNoReturn, and Kew Gardens 613: as well. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments - I have a midterm test today, but will come back afterward. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good luck! Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I just took my test, so I'm able to respond now. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Style

Lead

• 21.9 million visitors in 2013, excluding train and subway passengers has me confused - is this just people coming as tourism?
  • Yeah, just visitors-shoppers, tourists, etc. Not people using transit services here. ɱ (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, fantastic. I was trying to think what other trains might be there. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is it "similarly named" or "similarly-named" in the MOS? (I assume you read it to write this very nice lead, but if not I'll check myself)
  • Since "similarly-named" is an adjective phrase, I think it's a hyphen. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a possible wikilink for "intercity trains" (some NYC transport article perhaps)?
  • Intercity train has its own article, so I linked that.
• Saying that there are 30+26 tracks, and then 43 tracks are in use for passenger service; two dozen more serve as seems like bad math... I assume that there's some crossover between the 43 and 24, but the word "more" suggests otherwise? Any clarification?

Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are 67 tracks in total. Only 56 contain platforms, while the other 11 are now storage tracks. Of these 56 tracks, 43 are in passenger service. :*There are 30 passenger tracks on the upper level, and 26 passenger tracks on the lower level (excluding storage tracks). If storage tracks were included, the counts for both levels would be higher. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Could this be clarified in the article in a way that doesn't add too much? (Sorry if you've done that and I've missed it, just added a bunch more comments!) Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've done that. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Name

• Perhaps the second sentence of this section could be broken into two? I'd suggest after '1910', replacing "and which" with 'This', but however you like should work. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried doing this. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Services

• The commuter part looks fine. If I were being demanding, I'd suggest that it might be clearer earlier on if the last sentence were above the list of lines, but I also can't think of a way to do that well and it's a tiny point.
• In connecting services, the these routes in the first line could be 'the following routes', otherwise this part is clear.
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In Former services:
  • Is the rather long list of train lines from Canadian to Sunset Limited really needed? (if so, there should be a comma after the last station, and perhaps it could be trimmed)
    • It's not actually long. If we listed all named trains (not even all trains) to utilize GCT, the list would be gigantic. So I listed major NY Central/Amtrak routes across the country, all long-lasting, famous, named trains, that utilize(d) Grand Central Terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A short explanation of the Empire Corridor could be useful (just "the cross-state route to Niagara" or something would suffice)
    • Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Planned services satisfactory.

Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Interior

• This is where the explanation of the two levels is given - the terms have been used earlier, but it's not hard to understand so I don't think there is need to move this up.
• Calling the layout a 'scheme' seems a little unusual, but I can't think of anything better.
  • "Configuration" perhaps? I've added that in. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• The first section on the Main Concourse is good - in the last paragraph of this the phrases "original to the station" and "original to the terminal" are used very close together; perhaps they could be made the same or changed a bit further, though not necessary.

  • Reworded the second one. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • As another note, it could maybe link to the section on the ceiling that's below?
    • Added the link. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Who has said that the brass clock may be Grand Central's most recognizable icon? Are they more certain?
  • Added attribution. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• There are two 'designers' listed separately - I assume the first was appearance and the second was function?
  • Yes, that's correct. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think the urban legend needs to be in parentheses.
  • Removed that, but I don't think I was the person who added the parenthetical note. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I feel that the sentence starting There have been five departure boards may fit better above the row of images
  • @Ɱ: What do you think? epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps? Though I would really have to pick through the sources in that para to attribute that sentence; there's no one source that cares as much as I do about these boards, that has complete start and end times for four, nonetheless five boards. ɱ (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• At Its walls and seven large transverse arches are of coursed ashlar travertine, perhaps a 'made' could be put before "of" - I automatically read 'of course' and was confused
  • Fixed that - I didn't realize that this might be confusing. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• "first floor" is also mentioned in the passageways part - perhaps this could link to the page Storey or the numbering section there; though the article is in AmEng, the US and Canada are the only places that use this scheme so it's possibly considerate to explain it for the rest of the world who assume it's not at ground level
  • Added the link. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Grand Central North part good.

Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the Vanderbilt Hall part, maybe change and the Main Concourse to its north to say "which is to its north", so as to not confuse which is where (even with the map)
  • I did that with a few changes. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the next sentence about the chandeliers, it might be better saying that each has 132 bulbs on four tiers.
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Squash (sport) is linked twice in two sentences, the second is probably unnecessary.
  • Removed the second one. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Aren't most theatres-in-the-round surrounded on all four sides? I don't find the comparison necessary, and it may be a bit inaccurate.
  • Not sure, Ɱ might know since he added the section. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The Forbes ref calls it that, and I don't see any indication of a prescribed number of sides on the Wikipedia article for the subject. It does note the shapes can be "rectangular, circular, diamond, or triangular." ɱ (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Also photos and this video show four viewable sides. Maybe just some years it was three? ɱ (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the part about 'Agern', "85-seat" is duplicated.

Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why would series of lockers need restoring? Perhaps their existence could be mentioned outside the list of 'issues'?
• In the sentence starting An overpass between the main concourse, a bridge is mentioned - though I assume it's the same as the overpass, this could be clarified, maybe by saying 'this bridge' or repeating 'overpass'?
• The lost and found part uses "it" to refer to ashes - should be 'them', or replace with something like 'the urn'?
• Could link "Florentine" in the Campbell mention to Florence for clarification?
• Should In 1966, the vacated studio space was converted to Vanderbilt Tennis Club not say 'converted into'?

Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I resolved all five comments above. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! Sorry for the sporadic-adding, I'm now working subsection-by-subsection. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Its only remaining vestige is the storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria New York hotel built in 1931 also doesn't need parentheses.
• At A new substation —the world's largest at the time — was the dashes should both be unspaced emdashes (i.e. "substation—the world's largest at the time—was")
• In the sentence beginning "Occupying a four-story space...", is "footprint" the clearest word choice (especially since it's below ground)?
• Tracks 12, 22, and 31 do not exist... - no need for parentheses.
• Could be clearer what 'their' is at To their east sits the East Yard - perhaps change to "To the east of the passenger platforms..."?
• It would be better to turn the first sentence of the second paragraph of 'Track distribution' (North of the East Yard is the Lex Yard, a secondary storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria Hotel that formerly served the power plant for Grand Central Terminal.) into two, with the split after 'Waldorf Astoria Hotel'.
• In this same paragraph, passenger platforms are mentioned but it still seems to be referring to storage yards? Could this part be clarified?
• The acronym LIRR should be introduced right after Long Island Rail Road.

Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks, I have done all of these. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Architecture

• Does Sylvain Salières have a page on French wikipedia that could be interlanguage linked?

Nope. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Originally slated to measure... may read better to say "Originally intended..."
• The hatnotes for the facade and ceiling don't match - which is alright, but could be altered.

Well the ceiling hatnote links to all details in full. The facade hatnote is different; the section here covers architectural elements of the facade and minor details on each of the artistic elements, while the hatnote is for further info on these artistic elements: the statue group, Vanderbilt statue, and clock adorning the facade. ɱ (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Does the iconography section really need to define acorns? It's very common, but could also simply be wikilinked.

Oak trees come up in that paragraph too, so I think without the clue in, people could miss the link between oaks and acorns, besides that they both are from trees. Perhaps could instead state something like that the Vanderbilt motto is accurate, but I don't know how to word that without it being awkward. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Related structures

• Some of the viaduct information could be expanded - for example: did the western leg originally serve both northbound and southbound traffic? Is the sidewalk on the viaduct level, and which side?

Yes it used to be a two-way road, covered in the main article on the subject. The sidewalk on the viaduct is visible in Google Maps' street and satellite views, though I'm not sure if sources cover the details. There is a valet parking area/taxi dropoff area for the hotel on the side of the viaduct - this sidewalk continues to the southwest corner of the viaduct where the eagle statue is. Unfortunately there's no crosswalk or anything between the two sidewalk segments (left and right of the overpass) so it's near-impossible to cross during most times of the day - too much traffic. Does this help? ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Some of this could be cleared up in the article if there's sources for the history? Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is "post office station" correct? It's only called a post office throughout except this instance.

Likely meant to be "post office building", fixed. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the subway part, "dubbed" seems too informal - the sentence works fine without it, so this word could be removed.

Kingsif (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

History

• The predecessors part discusses reaching capacity in the mid 1890s but then that expansions were made in 1885 - this could be correct, but equally one number could be a typo. It also disrupts the flow somewhat, especially when the next section is about hitting capacity again.
• It then says something happened in 1908, and "later" Wilgus wrote a letter, but Wilgus expanded on this plan in 1903? It's very detailed, but could be stronger chronologically.

1908 was a deadline, not the date of something happening. The chronology is correct here. ɱ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• It mentions the final Amtrak train, but has not mentioned Amtrak before, it's a bit of a jolt. Amtrak could be mentioned earlier in the section.

Done. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• The mention of the proposed MTA purchase leaves the reader hanging - did they buy it or not?

Epicgenius, not sure how you want to say it. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I think it is now clear that the purchase was finalized. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Innovations

• As the terminal still exists, should the offered at the start not be "offers"? Or some other phrasing that establishes the facilities were deemed innovative at an earlier time than the present without being potentially misleading? Though the section does suggest that some of the innovations are still considered present (e.g. departure times), so present tense should suffice.
  • @Kingsif: Thanks for the final comments. The facilities were considered new for their time. I have changed the wording to reflect that. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• all types of travelers sounds strange, just "all travelers" should work fine.
  • Done.
• The word "portion" is used several times, is 'area' not more common?
  • Fixed.
• The air rights are mentioned; I think there's a discussion about this on the talk page, are there any updates on that?
  • No, nothing in particular. The last major transaction was the transfer of air rights for One Vanderbilt. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• The comment of the Helmsley building image could be expanded, perhaps to something like the one at History of Grand Central Terminal, to inform why it's included in this section (or move the image down to the subsection where it's mentioned)
  • Done.
• The use of "either" in the constituent structures sub-section has a different tone to the information - it could be rephrased to use "both ... and" (not "either ... or")
  • That actually is the case here. However, the word "or" is pretty far into the phrase. ...either constructed the structures and rented them out, or sold the air rights to private developers who would construct their own buildings. Nevertheless, these long phrases are needed since they explain why there was one or the other. I have changed it now. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is the "razed" in ...part of Terminal City was gradually razed or reconstructed with steel-and-glass designs... referring to being burned flat, or some other definition? In either case, I feel it needs a wikilink or a wiktionary link for clarity.
  • Demolished, as in gradually taking apart the structure. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Emergency services

• Were the officers patrolling unclothed or just not in uniform? Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They were literally patrolling unclothed. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Art installations...

This is fine, but could be expanded a bit; if there are some notable examples, perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: Got any ideas? epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

• The references for the sentence Almost every scene... could be reordered just for numerical order.
  • Done.
• The sentence On October 19, 2017, several of these films were screened... starts out fine and then becomes an "and X and Y and Z" of details, confusing the relations. This should be rewritten.
  • Split into 2 sentences. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• I feel that maybe the entire mention of SNL should be in this part, as the rest of the influence subsection is about other stations modeled on the terminal.
  • I think this might have been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) I fixed it now. epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• On another note, it may be possible to create an article on depictions of Grand Central Terminal in media, as a main| for this section.
  • Yeah, hopefully. Though it may become abandoned like Empire State Building in popular culture, Central Park in popular culture, etc (both of these had their "Popular culture" sections condensed when they became GA's). epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Coverage

• Is N2 in the lead needed (i.e. a terminal is still a kind of station, per Terminus station, so it feels redundant arguing the clarification), especially with the terminus/terminal station section already linked in the same sentence. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We could move the description to the "Name" section instead, but trust me it has been necessary. "Grand Central Station" is very well embedded in popular culture, even leading the original article creators here to create the page as "Grand Central Station". A clear note of the similarities and differences in the terms is needed, more than just the passive link to rail terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I now have a vivid image of frustration at the name being changed to station, so thanks for the chuckle. However you want to do it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, in Linda Fairstein's fiction book Terminal City (which I started reading this week, and is set around the terminal), an entire page is devoted to one of the characters saying how it's actually a terminal and not a station. Actually, the characters spend multiple pages talking about the history and the terminal's features, but that's beside the point. The character in question was complaining that "Grand Central Station is the name of the IRT subway stop" (p. 170). Beside the point, but anyway, an interesting anecdote. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everything in lead mentioned and expanded on substantially in article body. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The services section is rather straightforward, covers all. Perhaps mentions a few too many lines-formerly-accessible-by-transfer, more than enough to get an understanding, at least - this is mentioned above. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is there any given reason why the skylight was impractical? Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The skylight would have been huge, but probably wouldn't have had a strong support system at the time. At least the barrel vault holds up the ceiling. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Any update on platforms since 2016? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, still the same. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Do we know what material the "large columns designed to hold the weight of a 20-story office building" are made of? Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's steel. epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• If it's calling Pennsylvania RR the "arch-rival", more details of this rivalry could be included.
• The mention of the Pan Am/Met Life building seems unrelated, unless its creation was linked to the Grand Central skyscraper plans?
• APU being absorbed by American Financial Group also seems to be an extra detail, especially since it doesn't mention if this company then gained ownership of Grand Central.
  • This bit of info could also be moved to the American Financial reference in the renovation subsection.
• Are there any sources with reactions to the giant billboards taking over the station?

I'm removing the word 'billboard' because that usually has a connotation with lit outdoor ads. The NYT article, ref 86, has some reactions. I think the GCT history article can/should cover this, not this summary. ɱ (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Illustration

• Fantastic to have an up-to-date audio article
  • Wasn't even aware of this, seems to have been made two weeks ago. Thanks @JohnAnkerBow:. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'd turn the portal box in see also into a portalbar, but that's just my preference
  • There's enough see also topics that it doesn't jut out much - prefer this method to make the article as short as it has to be. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Amazing selection of commons images - all used appropriately and often of the best quality
  • Thanks, yup, spent a lot of time hunting, and a big trip of a few Wikipedians to adequately cover details of the building. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• One non-free image used with appropriate rationale, and in a place where it is useful for coverage (Solari board)
• A frankly beautiful infobox
• Good use of interactive visual elements
• There may be one too many images in the Vanderbilt Hall stack; the squash tournament doesn't necessarily need to be illustrated, and having three pushes into the Biltmore section and creates an image/text/image tunnel. This wouldn't stop me from promoting, but something for you guys to discuss?
  • Depends on the width of your screen. I personally find the three important enough to show, and don't mind sandwiching as much as many Wikipedians. Thinking of an alternative... ɱ (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The track map is also very nice, including an in-box legend as well as the link, compass and labels. I do have one genuine question: were the signal towers intended to be included in the map layout, since they're mentioned in the box?
  • Which map(s) are you referring to here? Was it Template:GCT track map? ɱ (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, it says Note: Interlocking towers A, B, C, F, and U have been deactivated., and these towers are mentioned in the article body but they're not in the map as far as I can see? So I'm not sure why this note is here and not in the body text? Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I presume @Epicgenius: didn't complete it or chose not to include them? Pinging him here. ɱ (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't have enough time to place these on the map. I will look at this later tonight. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • In the article, there's the text Grand Central Terminal was built with five signal control centers, labeled A, B, C, F, and U. The sources don't say exactly where these towers were located, and in any case, I don't think there's space in the template to put the icons for these control centers. Or I may just be reading the diagram wrong. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
          • That's alright. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Pass

Neutrality

Yeah, this is fine.

• Pass

Stability

• I'm a little concerned about the recent vandalism from 169.199.168.233; ClueBot seems attuned to this, though
  • There are 233 page watchers, so I am not worried. ɱ (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Other than that, looks great
• Pass

Verifiability

• The refs could be reorganized into a more formal format - this is unnecessary for GA, but if you want to nom for FA it would be ideal (and also fits much better with a such a detailed article!)
  • I personally prefer this more layman-friendly style. Many readers will not understand abbreviated work titles, as well as abbreviations like ibid, idem, loc cit, and op cit. Unnecessary alienation in my view. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, "ibid", etc. are violations of MOS. I think the {{harvnb}} templates are suitable enough - they don't clog up the main text with 50 instances of the same reference, and they also link to an entry in the bibliography below. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Epicgenius: I was mostly referring to adding title/source/author and similar to refs like the current [3] and [4], [25]. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Kingsif: This seems to have been the only case of the refs not being completely filled out. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sources look good
• A few refs could have their sources cleaned up a bit - "nbcnewyork.com" should just be "NBC New York", for example
  • fixed, let me know if anything else stands out. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The statement ...colloquially as the "Kissing Room". is missing its ref - it's the current [125] (Mann, Ted).
  • fixed. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Everything else cited in-line
• Lead follows ref guidelines
• Pass (minor clean-up)

Copyright

• Check seems clean
• Good rationale for non-free image.
• Pass

Overall

@Kingsif: Do you have any additional comments? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, went without Internet for a while! Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

on hold This is looking great, and your updates are really timely! Putting on hold for responses to the last sections of comments, and I may go over the sources again, but it's very close now, thanks for the hard work, guys. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and Ɱ: I've done a final source check; all the references work and give enough information, there is a wide variety of good reliable sources, and from a random spot check they all seem to be accurately sourcing the info in the article. With only the question on expanding the Art installations section left, I don't feel that's enough to hold it back from promotion. Great work! Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Has Grand Central been purchased?

Has the deal gone through? It's very tough to ascertain this. There hasn't been an MTA press release, or new or updated article from the New York Times or any other major news source verifying the purchase went through. Most sources about the matter date to Nov. 13 or 14, before the final board vote. These sources from November 16 seem to say that the purchase did take place: Real Estate Weekly, National Real Estate Investor, Commercial Property Investor, Bloomberg, 6sqft. They seem to state it as hard fact that it went through, though there's no evidence or details submitted, and I've really only ever heard of one or two of those news sources before. And it doesn't seem there's been any press on this since November 16. Can anyone find more evidence for this? ɱ (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, Well, it was approved and signed-off upon, according to page 73 of the MTA MNRR board meeting document from Nov 2018. Whether the MTA is now in possession of Grand Central is a different question. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see that, but I don't think that makes it more concrete that it was sold. I think I've seen a dozen acquisitions approved in the past few months by company boards that end up falling through or getting blocked in courts... ɱ (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ, Yeah, that's why I said it was a different question of whether the MTA now owns GCT. I haven't heard anything to that effect. Maybe Kew Gardens 613 would know. epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ and Epicgenius: This page, which might be outdated, does not show that the MTA now owns GCT. I will see if I can find anything.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I think you are right, Midtown Trackage Ventures LLC still owns GCT, building-block-lot number #01280-0001. I looked up the report PropertyShark. However, according to ACRIS, inputing that BBL number gives a document that shows the MTA has waived air rights. I will need to look later for a document that shows whether ownership has been transferred. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that document only applies to 416 Lexington Avenue (current Grand Central Market). ɱ (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Number of platforms

I just removed a citation-needed tag for the number of platforms.

• First, GCT holds the world record for the number of platforms and it is sourced in the article. Per WP:CITELEAD, citations are not needed in the lead for statements which are sourced in the article.
• Second, Shinjuku Station only has 35 platforms, not 53. This would put Shinjuku behind GCT for number of platforms, as GCT has 44 platforms. If we're counting platforms within connected stations, GCT would have 10 subway platforms as well, for a total of 54 platforms. But we're not counting platforms within connected stations. epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Roberts references

There are two Roberts (2013) references in use: the book, and the New York Times article. It's not clear which is meant to be which in the text, and it's causing this article to get listed in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly add at some point

"Railroad Exposition" or "Transportation Exposition" for the New York Central system hosted on the east balcony of the main concourse, c. 1923-1929, at least.

• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7590709/the-new-york-age/
• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-1127.pdf
• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-0629.pdf
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Popular_Science_Monthly/6fhRAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Railroad%20Exposition%22%20grand%20central
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bulletin/f85GAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=grand%20central%20terminal%20balcony
• File:Grand Central rays of sunlight.jpg
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grand_Central_Terminal/GnKxDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Transportation+Exposition%22+grand+central&pg=PT697&printsec=frontcover

--ɱ (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Metro–North track numbering

There are some contradictions in the layout of yard/storage tracks 51–65. The article says "track numbers 57, 58, and 62 do not exist". The "Grand Central track map" diagram (Template:GCT track map, mostly by User:Epicgenius) instead is missing tracks 54, 58, and 62. The diagram cites Operations-Metro-North-Railroad-Track-Charts.pdf from 2015, where the analogous diagram on page 89 (page number 84 of the contained document) is missing 54, 57, 58, and 62. There are likewise inconsistencies for the lower level. What is the original and/or current facts? DMacks (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This was a concern at the GA review; when it was explained to me there seemed no simpler way of expressing it. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, thanks for the ping. This is interesting, because the Metro North Railroad operation diagram also does not show track 61, which does exist. In fact, that diagram only shows 10 tracks existing, while all the other diagrams I've seen show 12 tracks. However, the GCT track map does appear to be inaccurate, so I changed the track map to reflect what's currently in the text. This information is sourced to "Green, Richard E. (2009). Metro-North Railroad Track Map." which is not available freely, but which is excerpted in this article. Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Article size

I have reverted an anonymous editor's addition of a {{too long}} tag from this page. The editor claimed in their edit summary that the page does not load on mobile browsers - however, this is not a consideration that Wikipedia should use, because readers have varying data download and upload speeds. The layout is not too dense to navigate, nor does this exceed the readable prose size guideline outlined in Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline.

However, I do think this might be getting a bit long, at 81 kilobytes of readable prose size. To that extent, I would support splitting some parts of the article further. We already have articles about the terminal's history and art, as well as pages about various aspects of the terminal such as M42 (sub-basement), Campbell Apartment, and Grand Central LIRR terminal. I think we may need to consider splitting some more aspects of this page, such as popular culture appearances and Terminal City, and then summarizing them here. Epicgenius (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I would like to split off architecture/interior, some of the most substantial areas, but I'm not sure how to arrange it all. Are there precedents to look at? I hadn't found any, but will check again. ɱ (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, I suggest we can start by reducing the amount of repetitiveness. For example, we have two interior sections right now: the main section about interior spaces, and the subsection of Architecture. Some of the rooms may be notable in themselves, too. Epicgenius (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That was actually incredibly deliberate! There's no good way to mash together talking about the general and specific architectural details while also describing the layout, functions, and histories of the interior spaces. I'd much rather move content and summarize, and then perhaps repetition could be cut down. ɱ (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also virtually no content overlap, it just allows for readable and navigable sections for readers who are either interested in learning about the building's architecture, or about the history and attributes of its interior spaces. ɱ (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, I see. I was a little confused at the interior part, but I do agree we can move content about places such as the Main Concourse. Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Scaffolding

Question for @Epicgenius: or @Ɱ:, I just saw all the scaffolding in GCT on this livestream, anything notable going on with that? Cards84664 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is they're just dealing with a leak in the roof that developed over the last couple of years, taking advantage of the low current foot traffic. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the latest of the MTA's Mileposts mentioned some cleaning; I've assumed it was that. Have not seen anything more recent. ɱ (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Topics to write about

• the Information Bureau / Q Telegraph Office
• the Transportation Exposition
• Also articles for Grand Central Depot, Grand Central Station

Transportation Exposition

"Railroad Exposition" or "Transportation Exposition" or "Permanent Exhibit" for the New York Central system hosted on the east balcony of the main concourse, 1923/24-1930, at least.

• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-0424.pdf
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7590709/the-new-york-age/
• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-1127.pdf
• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-0530.pdf
• http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/magazine/images/magazine-0629.pdf
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Popular_Science_Monthly/6fhRAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Railroad%20Exposition%22%20grand%20central
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bulletin/f85GAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=grand%20central%20terminal%20balcony
• File:Grand Central rays of sunlight.jpg
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grand_Central_Terminal/GnKxDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Transportation+Exposition%22+grand+central&pg=PT697&printsec=frontcover

--ɱ (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

To be expanded... --ɱ (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Information booth clock

Glass clock faces restored by Flickinger Glassworks:

• http://www.laborarts.org/exhibits/buildingtrades/detail.cfm?id=18
• https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/garden/03glass.html?searchResultPosition=1
• https://vimeo.com/386628181
• https://thebridgebk.com/made-in-brooklyn-this-tour-guide-shows-you-how-its-done/

--ɱ (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Roosevelt Hotel

Wasn’t there an underground walkway connecting Grand Central directly to this hotel at 45 45th st.? If so, it would be worth a mention, along with an explanation of how this came to be. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:A827:D4A9:D8C2:7B3F (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Grand Central Terminal does or has had innumerous entries within buildings or to random street corners. These sometimes change, and there are likely many unknown, not open to the public. It's tough to include one and somehow attempt to be comprehensive with the rest. ɱ (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually this one is well documented and was a major entry point for passengers coming from offices to the north much as the Grand Central North passageways do now. It was also a significant selling point for the hotel itself. This one can and should be mentioned at least. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the documentation, and don't really agree in general, but would be interested to see citations that it was as major as "much as the Grand Central North passageways" and a "significant selling point for the hotel". ɱ (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

All connections/entrances are worth noting-maybe not necessarily in detail. If there is information on the construction/closure of these entrances, it should be included.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Newish sources that could be helpful

• https://untappedcities.com/2021/08/30/secret-tunnels-grand-central-terminal/5/?displayall=true
• https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/diagram-details-how-grand-central-terminal-was-an-immensely-complicated-engineering-project

--ɱ (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dianehyi, Emj1123. Peer reviewers: Khan.saqib01, Sarah Alers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy's involvement in preserving Grand Central

Fellow Wikipedians, I was surprised to see no mention of J. Kennedy Onassis's major role in preserving GCT, it is described in her article which links here. I can add, but wonder if there was a reason that was omitted. This would probably go in the Decline section. Comments? Fothergilla (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the input. I did quite a lot of research on this topic for the development of this article, and some sub-articles. I don't recall Kennedy being given as much prominence in scholarly sources as one might think. She was a public figure, someone who attracted public attention to the issue, but potentially nothing more. She is mentioned at the History of Grand Central Terminal article, and quoted. If you feel more should be added, please propose something!

Best, ɱ (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically

Hi Ɱ: perhaps you think I'm using "technically" in the colloquial wishy-washy way of an insecure, self-inserting pedant, but I'm actually using it in the very literal way: this is how the technical definition reads, despite a common name that is used otherwise. Perhaps there is some other phrase or word you can suggest that tells the audience that "Grand Central Station" is absolutely the common name for this place, despite "Grand Central Terminal" more precisely aligning to the niche jargon used narrowly within the field of rail transport, without you thinking that I'm simply failing to be "professional". Wolfdog (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the word is unnecessary myself. The first paragraph explains the origin of the name; the reader is left in no doubt that "Grand Central Station" is the common and colloquial name for Grand Central Terminal. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not free to look into rewriting this right now. For the record, it's seen enough eyes and countless hours of a team in researching and writing, and nobody else has found this name issue unclear and made that known. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. Just a simple word or two is what I'd requested -- not a whole project. Wolfdog (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Saving a 'bookmark'

I'm saving this 'bookmark' here: Archives Center, National Museum of American History: Guide to the Grand Central Terminal Collection

At some point, I or another researcher should look at the files in this collection, it's probably one of the most thorough, and likely has answers to some still-outstanding questions. ɱ (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Great image archives

Though not great enough, there aren't many copyright-free-stated images:

• JSTOR
• Avery Library
• MCNY
• NYC Municipal Archives
• NYPL
• LOC

--ɱ (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources/free images

• https://archive.org/details/sim_electrical-world_1912-12-21_60_25/page/1308/mode/2up?q=%22grand+central%22
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106005425688&view=1up&seq=935&q1=grand%20central
• https://archive.org/details/sim_munseys-magazine_1911-04_45_1/page/26/mode/2up?q=grand+central
• https://archive.org/details/sim_scientific-american_1912-12-07_107_23/page/n13/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/details/sim_scientific-american_1911-06-17_104_24/page/n11/mode/2up?q=%22grand+central%22
• https://archive.org/details/sim_scientific-american_1903-01-17_88_3/page/38/mode/2up?q=%22grand+central%22
• https://archive.org/details/sim_scientific-american_1918-11-09_119_19/page/378/mode/2up?q=%22grand+central%22
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/20454557/?terms=%22grand%20central%20station%22%20mercury%20%22clock%22%20-%22o%27clock%22
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/369036839/?terms=%22grand%20central%20station%22%20mercury%20%22clock%22%20-%22o%27clock%22&match=1
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/201704513/?terms=%20%22clock%22&match=1
• pp 29-40
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015084756579&view=1up&seq=1051&q1=grand%20central

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/40100842?seq=2
• https://usmodernist.org/AF/AF-1968-01-02.pdf

--ɱ (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)