User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2017/Nov

2017 Lower Manhattan attack / 2017 New York City attack.

Good afternoon! I noticed that you closed a move discussion regarding 2017 Lower Manhattan attack/2017 New York City attack. This page was moved without consensus before the move discussion was closed. I am thinking about starting a Move Review on this issue. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I don't object to a Move Review. I didn't know it was without consensus, so I suppose it is my fault. epicgenius 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Move review for 2017 Lower Manhattan attack

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2017 Lower Manhattan attack. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Interstate 295 (New York)

Hello! Your submission of Interstate 295 (New York) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS13

Template:BS13 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS14

Template:BS14 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Chrysler building

Don't forget to add {{Translated page}}, please. Great job! Triplecaña (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Triplecaña: Thanks! I will add it. epicgenius 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Half Million Awards

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring New York City Subway (estimated annual readership: 7005650000000000000♠650,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Trump Tower (estimated annual readership: 7005700000000000000♠700,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

42nd Street Shuttle Track Map

Hi, could you possibly fix the track map on the 42nd Street Shuttle article to indicate that Track 4 is in service. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Done. epicgenius 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

R train route map

Hey, now that the R serves SAS, the route map on the page needs updating, don't you think? I'm not too familiar with the way the map is formatted, otherwise I would've done it myself. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@LRG5784: I'll work on it. If I don't have it within a day, you can also ask WT:Maps for assistance. epicgenius 13:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@LRG5784:  Done, though the code is kind of messy and disorganized (e.g. the elements used to create the SAS branches are outside the rest of the "graphics" folder that draws the rest of the lines in the system). But anyone who is better at me with SVGs can fix that. epicgenius 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to the Second Avenue Line, but was my edit to the route diagram correct? Jc86035 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yes, that's correct. Thanks for fixing that. epicgenius 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fordham Plaza, Bronx

The article Fordham Plaza, Bronx you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fordham Plaza, Bronx for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Drown Soda -- Drown Soda (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flushing Meadows–Corona Park

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flushing Meadows–Corona Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flushing Meadows–Corona Park

The article Flushing Meadows–Corona Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Flushing Meadows–Corona Park for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 295 (New York)

On 13 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Interstate 295 (New York), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that urban planner Robert Moses was said to have laughed at protesters he encountered while surveying routes for the Clearview Expressway in New York City in the 1950s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 295 (New York). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Interstate 295 (New York)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flushing Meadows–Corona Park

The article Flushing Meadows–Corona Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flushing Meadows–Corona Park for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

File:NYCT Bombardier R179 at Avenue H.jpg

We have a new file that should be transfered to Commons: File:NYCT Bombardier R179 at Avenue H.jpg

--Davidng913 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Davidng913: I have transferred the file. For future reference, you can also do it yourself by using commonshelper. epicgenius 18:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason it wouldn’t let me do so-Davidng913 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to authorize the tool to work first. Click on the link called "Authorize". Also, if a photo has already been transferred to Commons, it won't work. epicgenius 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flushing Meadows–Corona Park

Hello! Your submission of Flushing Meadows–Corona Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kosack (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 42nd Street Shuttle

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-11

Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

• The Global collaboration report for October is now available.
• All wikis now have the Filters for edit review as the default system on Recent Changes page.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Most recent changes

• Filters for Watchlists are still on Beta. Please try them and give feedback before we release it for all users!
• Shortcuts to filter Namespaces and Tags are now more visible. [1]
• Discovery of the search bar has been improved. [2]
• If the Recent Changes page or the Watchlist fails to load or is time-outed, a message is now displayed. [3][4]
• The bookmark icon for creating a "Saved filter" is now grayed when it is not possible to save. Before it was not visible. Bookmarking is unavailable when, for example, the current filter set is already saved. [5]

Future changes

• Live updates on Recent changes will be moved out of beta and into the standard feature set by the end of the year. [6]
• Extension:Translate filters for RecentChanges are going to be integrated to the new filters. [7]
• Automatic edit summaries will be filtered as tags. [8]

Content translation [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• List items (suggested items and in-progress/published translations) layout restyled to prevent overflows on small screen sizes.
• Search results for new translation dialog are now embedded, instead of being displayed in floating menu. Search results remain displayed when tabbed out and can be closed using ESC key.
• Missing pages are no longer shown when there is no match for search query. Message informing that there are no results is displayed instead.
• Embedded search results enabled to provide users with more translation opportunities. Articles user recently edited (in currently selected source language wiki) are surfaced when there is no input in search bar, with additional info if article is missing in user's currently selected target language.
• Long suggestion descriptions are limited to three lines, and the rest is truncated, which is indicated by ellipsis.
• Chart data representing user translation statistics in now showing all the months since user's first published translation. Months that went without translation are now displayed in chart as well.
• A loading indicator is shown while suggestions are loading.
• Button to discard dialog is now shown through the whole process of selecting article to translate.

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• Edit-user-talk notifications are now expandable. [9]

Structured Discussions [More information • Help pages]

Future changes

• Some work is ongoing to store Structured Discussions contents from HTML to wikitext. That change will allow some specific templates and magic words to work properly on Structured Discussions. [10]
• Some tests are conducted in order to prepare the rewriting of Structured Discussions' interface. That rewriting will have no visible impact on users but it will ease future changes.

Other projects

• Compact Language Links has been deployed on German Wikipedia. [11]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Epicgenius. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the offer. I'll consider it. epicgenius 14:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockefeller Center edits

I appreciate that you are trying to expand the article, but I honestly think the article was better before your edits. They bloat the article, making it unfocused and difficult for a reader to get a simple overview of the complex. It's an excyclopedia article, not an architectural history textbook. It's become too detailed, too bloated, and the text now contains so many redundancies that it reads terribly.

Also, your categorization of the buildings of the original complex is weak and sorta OR-ish. Trust me when I say, as someone who works there and has reason to go around the entire complex, that 600 Fifth Ave has nothing to do with the later buildings on the west side of Sixth Ave, and really should not be categorized with them at all. Try are not from the same period (built over 30 years apart), nor anywhere close to the sameness architectural style. Plus, as noted in the article, 600 Fifth Ave wasn't even the last building in the original complex built, so how can it be a "later building". Lastly, I frankly think removing the straightforward list of buildings in the original complex is exceedingly, incredibly poor. It takes away from the utility of the article to the reader significantly.

I'm almost tempted to roll back the entire article. Normally I like your work, but I think you gone way overboard here, and the edit needs to be severely trimmed back down to a much more manageable, and utilitarian form. oknazevad (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I understand your concerns. However, I think our ideas of what's better differ in the sense that the previous article status was woefully outsourced. It's still very much a work in progress and, if needed, I can put back the summary list.

I am trying to improve the page to at least a Good Article, and I'm in the process of splitting off the info from the main page. I already split off the construction section and am going to create an arts section. This is just a temporary status, and I do intend to split the article soon. epicgenius 05:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

But that's part of the "over detailed" aspect. I just don't know if the subject demands a half dozen or so articles to cover it, which is what the "expand and split" method creates. We really start getting to the obscure and esoteric trivia that is appropriate for an art or architecture book specifically about Rockefeller Center, but is too detailed for a general interest encyclopedia. Just because something is in the source doesn't mean it needs to go into the article, and not every article needs a half (or even whole) dozen daughter articles, which is what this is turning into, considering each building's article can be considered a daughter article. And I'm saying it now, no I don't think every building in the complex should have its own article. There's really not much can say about 1 Rock, for example, that isn't better covered by in-context coverage here. oknazevad (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I know, but some of the listings in the previous version didn't contain any details besides ownership and previous names. For instance, it was kind of misleading to read 1 Rockefeller Plaza – The original Time–Life Building; an original tenant was General Dynamics, for whom the building was briefly named. It's more useful to know that it's a 36-story building on the southern block. The French Wikipedia already has articles about almost all of these buildings, so it's not a big deal. I can definitely trim the building descriptions, starting with the opening dates and artworks. Does that sound good? epicgenius 14:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening dates are important, so leave those. Art work can be mentioned, but it should be brief.

The breakdown by grouping I think is poor, because it muddles things. If anything, a separate header for each building works better that the current lumped together sections (some of which are just inaccurate; "Radio City" actually describes more than just the original complex buildings along 6th Ave, as it continues up to the CHS corporate offices three blocks north). It would be easier and more obvious to navigate, and would be a better use of anchors than the current setup. Anchors really shouldn't be used in the middle of sections; it's confusing and annoying to readers to follow a link and not even have a header to tell them where in an article they have landed. If it warrants an anchor, it warrants a header. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove many of the anchors soon and replace them with headers. I based the groupings off of the Landmarks Preservation designation, which clearly grouped the buildings into "Radio City", "International", and "Other" clusters. I included the Simon & Schuster Building as part of Radio City because it stands over the former Center Theatre, which once was part of Radio City. On the other hand, I put 600 Fifth as part of "Later Buildings" because Carol Herselle Krinsky and Daniel Okrent, in their respective books, say that the complex was completed in 1939, and 600 Fifth started construction much later. epicgenius 15:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think it's better to just have a section for each building and ditch the groupings, as it's easier to navigate. And while 600 Fifth was completed later, it was part of the plans from the start, just put off for costs, unlike the building on the west side of Sixth Ave. (Also, it's owned by Tishman Speyer, and is connected on both the concourse and sub-basement/loading dock levels, unlike the others.) oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. epicgenius 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Spring Creek Park

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)