Talk:New York Penn Station/Archive 1

Intro

I think this article is very good. I'm changing MSG to Penn Square in the first paragraph, since it is not correct to say that the station is the underground level of MSG. Rather, the station spans a much greater area than MSG, which is above only the portion of the station south of 32rd Street. Penn Square is the entire block, however, and thus it is a more correct statement. Decumanus 04:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A good distinction Decumanus (even for us New Yorkers). It needs to be quite clear in the main article. Wetman 09:26, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Considering "considered"

I have deleted the "considered" from the sentence " the original Pennsylvania Station of legend was considered an outstanding masterpiece of the Beaux-Arts style" C'mon! Inserting "considered" into a statement does not render a false note valid, or create neutrality if there is none: it merely exposes the writer's timidity and fear that their value judgments are not founded on insight, experience and education— only too often quite true, alas. Sensible value judgments about works of art and culture, about the importance or lack of it of historical events, these are what make an encyclopedia, as long as plenty of accurate fact is also marshalled. A phrase like "St Peter's Basilica is considered a masterpiece of Baroque" has less of limpness and bathos stated in the active voice and without the dreadful generic "considered." Wetman 08:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think these are really appropriate value judgments to make in the active voice. It is not a verifiable fact that it is "an outstanding masterpiece", since this is entirely an opinion. It is a verifiable fact that many people hold that opinion---that it is "considered an outstanding masterpiece". Even better would be to say that it is "often cited as an outstanding masterpiece" (or similar), with a reference to someone relatively authoritative who actually does so. This is one of the major differences, IMO, between Wikipedia's "NPOV" approach and earlier encyclopedias, like the famous Britannica 1911, that made stronger value judgments, like "this is so-and-so's best book" or "although quite famous, [some play] is rather overrated". --Delirium 22:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

pov?

Is this not POV? How should it be fixed?

“The demolition of such a well-known landmark, and its replacement by a mediocre slab of real estate, were widely deplored ...”

— Michael J 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Replying to something from five years ago: Clearly you have never been in this god-forsaken hole in the ground we call a train station. I pass through it twice a week and am always saddened that this is what tourists from other parts of the country and Canada have to see (and smell). There should be a reputable article linked that accurately and objectively describes how horrible this station is. Trust me, the article is too kind to it now. TheArchaeologist 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Less Used?

I do not think that Grand Central Station is less used than Penn Station. In fact I think it is the busiest train station in the United States. Someone may want to check the numbers on that one.--69.140.113.223 02:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any numbers or anything (I'm currently looking), but common sense would seem to say that Penn is more used than Grand Central. Penn is served by the Long Island Rail Road (the busiest commuter rail system in the country), NJ Transit, and Amtrak, while GCT is only served by Metro-North Railroad. I could be wrong, though. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn Station is four times busier than Grand Central Terminal. Penn Statio handles about 500,000 rail users a day compared to Grand Central which has about 125,000 commuters per day.

• Haha, Im sorry but I don't think so. Grand Central may fool you with it's impressive looks but it is nowhere near Penn Station in terms of passengers per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.197.26 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Central is a domestic train terminal and subway station. Its terminal function is only for places in upstate NY and CT. Here is the map from Metro-North, the domestic train carrier: http://www.mta.info/mnr/gifs/mnrmap.png. The subway is ofc the main hub on East Side's 4,5, and 6 lines, and maybe another whose name escapes me at this moment. Penn Station services a much larger area including regular service to Canada. TheArchaeologist 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for Moynihan Station?

I think the time has come to give moynihan Station its own entry. There is enough information, and released sketches for this. Milchama 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moynihan Station should not have a separate article, just as there are not separate articles for the old Penn Station and the present one. Moynihan Station redirects to this article, which I think is correct.

I agree Moynihan Station should not have a separate article. In fact what is called Moynihan Station is just an additional passenger concourse for Penn Station. Similarly the NJT 34th deep underground station will be yet another set of tracks and underground concourse associated with Penn Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.214 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly IS Moynihan Station? Was it a proposed station? 72.76.181.118 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Rock On!

Moynihan Station is a proposed station across the street from current Penn Station, which will connect to the Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel. Also, NJT has apparently altered plans for the station and it will no longer be a direct connectiin to Penn. Therefore a separate article may warrant consideraiton radiocolin —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Disagree that Moynihan Station will be a separate facility. What Is Moynihan Station? explains how Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station station project will add new entrances to the existing Penn Station; Phase 2 will add a new train hall west of Eighth Avenue and renovate the existing station east of Eighth Avenue. This seems to be an expansion and renaming of the existing Penn Station. Martindelaware (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Destruction" heading

The heading in this article titled "Destruction" is inherently POV. Obviously Penn Station was not destroyed. The below-ground railroad platforms remained intact, and the above-ground structure was replaecd with something else. Those who deplore the decision (I am among them) may view it as a mistake, but a more neutral word would be something like "Replacement," "Reconstruction," or something like that. Marc Shepherd 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed "destruction" to "demolition," as the old station was undisputably demolished to make way for MSG. Wl219 00:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Marc Shepherd 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moynihan Station proposal in wake of Silver veto?

How would a veto by Silver affect the Moynihan Station proposal? It looks like the following might occur: Pataki throws his tantrum, recommends not pursuing the Moynihan project, NJT and New Jersey disagree with Pataki and attempt to negotiate Farley building lease anyway or persue action against NY state; Pataki leaves in disgrace, Spitzer comes into office; meanwhile, clamor for a giant Penn Station continues (this is a popular proposal, remember) and politicians seek to ruin Silver by whatever means possible. It's a risky game Silver and Pataki are playing here. Eventually, a new and larger Penn Station DOES wind up built, but it might require renegotiation with the federal government over purchase options for the Farley building (which will likely wind up given a do-over in whatever case), and the legacy of both Silver and Pataki will likely be tarnished by this sorry affair. Furthermore, I cannot predict whether the grander Penn Station would be on the current block of Penn or across the street from it. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Veto by Silver - done. Pataki tantrum and counter-recommendation - done. NJ reaction - we'll see. 204.52.215.107 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of article

What happened to the beginning of this article? The section before the table of contents (that is, that is not under any specific headings) seems to have gotten far too long and congested. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article split

Since the old and new Penn Stations are/were two very different places, shouldn't each have its own article? (Yes, I realize they were located in the same place, but the differences are vast to say the least.) Paul 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's the same station even though the internal configuration changed. Kyoto Station and John F. Kennedy International Airport come to mind. - Sekicho 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I believe the underground area has not changed much since 1910. However, it might be valid to create Pennsylvania Station (former building) and write about the architecture there. --NE2 06:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The interesting and well written old station section does not overstuff the present article, but we might want to rearrange the sections. As it is, the first half of the article says what once was, and the much smaller service section is stuck on at the end. I do not propose expanding the service section, but do propose putting it up front. Then readers would instantly learn all about what this particular station does, and then study the past if they've got the time. Jim.henderson 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

i would like to revisit a split of historic building, similar to Woolworth Building. many more sources, much expansion possible, in stand alone article Duckduckgo (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This would take a great deal of work to do properly. Actually, the present article needs greater attention and illustrations of the old station. And the article needs attention to the modern split of the station into three different waiting and ticket areas, Amtrak, LIRR and NJ Transit. However, when one is at train level it all appears to be the same station. An impressive contrast is Grand Central Terminal which is actually with trains departing from two different levels. See my comments on the 3 different areas below.Dogru144 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

done, feel free to edit down section, as split article has more. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What films?

"It was immortalized in films (see link below)." What movies? I don't see any list. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Penn Station appears in a scene in the movie Double Take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murjax (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Not to merge. ----DanTD (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a merger of 34th Street–Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) and 34th Street–Penn Station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) into this article since both subway stations are technically part of the Penn Station complex. Give your opinions. Murjax (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree. Even though they are part of the overall complex, they are two separate stations, with no free transfer between them, and a fare is required to enter them. Acps110 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree as Acps110 has noted, these are separate stations and, as such, should remain standalone articles. JGHowes ^talk - 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree on the above grounds and they would make an unnecessarily large article. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but some things don't make sense. If you look at the Newark Penn Station article, you will notice a few things. Two things must be noted though. PATH also requires a fare to enter it's platforms and The Newark Light Rail is located in another part of the station with seperate platforms. As you see in the article though, PATH isn't in a seperate article because it requires a fare and Newark Light Rail isn't in a seperate article because it's seperated from the rest of the station. Both these things apply to the Subway stations. Also I can't see how we can make the article too big at this point. There are currently airports with larger articles and Penn Station currently gets more passengers per day than all of New York's airports combined. If size is an issue though, I suggest making the services box collapsible. There is a disscussion on the WikiProject Trains talk page about this under the title "Collapsible Station infobox". Murjax (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree for similar reasons as Acps110, but he is wrong about one thing; They're not two separate stations, they're three separate stations. I didn't even like the idea of the merge between Newark Penn Station, and the Newark (PATH station) articles either. ----DanTD (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. --Pgecaj (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree for similar reasons. The only underground connection between these two stations is through a third station with a different owner. Martindelaware (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - This issue is dead, so if somebody could find the proper templates and close it, I'd gladly appreciate it. ----DanTD (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

I don't typically contribute to station articles, so take this comment for what it's worth: The infobox seems terribly unwieldy. Is the infobox the right place for all the information that's in it now? Couldn't a lot of the content be moved to the Services section? Cmprince (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• There has been discussion about the size of the infobox and if there was a way to make it collapsible. We figured out that we can collapse the services part, but we can't collapse the whole infobox. Someone made an example on their userpage, however it hasn't been added yet for reasons I don't know. Murjax (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I can assure you I'm not the one who made the collapsible userbox Murjax is referring to, but I made another one right over here. Let me know what you think of it. ----DanTD (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

West Side Yard or West Side Yards?

The captions of two photos have links to the West Side Yards, which leads to a redirect page to Trump's Riverside South development. Riverside South was built over the former site of New York Central's freight rail yards between 59th and 72nd Streets, not over the rail yard between 30th and 33rd Streets that was built in the mid 1980's and is currently used for the storage of LIRR trains. LIRR's rail yard is officially named the John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard after John D. Caemmerer, a state senator from Long Island that was instrumental in securing funds to construct the facility. (see page 66 of the MTA's 2004 Annual Report) Should the text be changed from "West Side Yards" to "West Side Yard", also removing the wikilink to West Side Yards to avoid confusion? -Transpoman (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in a word. I wonder if the redirect should be removed to avoid confusion. Certainly, if one were to ask a New Yorker, especially one who rides the LIRR, where the "West Side Yards" are, and they'll tell you something like "Just past Penn Station". In other words, the current redirect should point to an article about the LIRR yard, which was also built over the site of a former New York Central yard (in fact, the NY Central built it there to prevent the PRR from expanding Penn Station. Ironic, huh?) But until and unless a stubby article on the LIRR's West Side Yard, the links should be removed from this article, and the redirect should be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Hudson Yards the same as the LIRR's West Side Yard? This is also the first time I've ever heard of Caemmerer Yard. Tinlinkin (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely, change it to West Side Yard, singular. See also MTA West Side Rail Yard. Martindelaware (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a new page for the West Side Yard and changed the aforementioned links. The Hudson Yards is not the same as the West Side Yard because it refers to the surrounding neighborhood that was recently rezoned to accommodate residential and commercial development. Maybe the redirect on West Side Yards should be changed from Riverside South to the West Side Yard now that a page has been created. Transpoman (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done, sir! Thank you for your efforts.

I absolutely agree about changing the redirect. The current redirect rests on a series of assumptions that I don't think hold water. Firstly, it assumes that someone searching for "west side yards" is looking for the former New York Central facility at 72nd street, while I believe the LIRR facility is the more likely intention. Secondly, it assumes that the 72nd Street facility was known as the "west side yards", where I've only seen it called the "72nd Street yard". Lastly, it assumes that someone searching for the rail yard wants to read an article about a modern development that has no connection to the yard other than being on the same site. It's like pointing a redirect for the Jersey Central's Broad Street Newark station to the Prudential Center; it's a truly poor assumption.

The other thing I wanted to mention is a teeny-tiny little criticism of the new article, (and this applies to the Hudson Yards article as well). The yard is universally referred to as "West Side Yard" for short, almost never as "Caemmerer Yard". Indeed, Caemmerer's name is only really used when the full name is used. It's less the practical name of the yard, more of a dedication. So, the attempt at balance by alternating between the two is admirable, but runs against WP:COMMONNAME.

So that I will change, as well as the redirect, but that doesn't diminish the thanks you so rightly deserve. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → New York Pennsylvania Station — Per WP:COMMONNAME, everyone calls it "New York Penn Station". I spelled out "Pennsylvania" because it's the official station name and some people still use it. I see no benefit in putting Penn first, though. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pennsylvania Station (Newark) → Newark Pennsylvania Station

Question Do you wish to move Baltimore, Newark and the rest too? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Penn Station? The common name? They only call it New York Penn Station on the actual trains. I take the Regional (or Acela when I can) twice a week every week, and I am a New Yorker. Everyone (even the random people on the trains) just refers to it as Penn Station, and normally (except when the conducter is a cheery one) they just rfer to Newark's and Baltimore's just as Newark and Baltimore unless it is some smartmouth from one of those cities that feels like showing civic pride (what they are proud of exactly, I have no idea). TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I am proposing Newark too. Baltimore will be proposed separately if this succeeds. We need to differentiate Newark Penn from Newark Broad or Newark Airport. If you live in Newark, "Penn Station" does not mean NYC.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly me, I overlooked the "Pennsylvania Station (Newark) → Newark Pennsylvania Station" right below your statement. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you were I couldn't see it clearly. =p Newark for one thing (aside from being a hole) has far fewer people than NYC. It is only for Newarkers/Newarkites that Penn Station means their station whereas New Yorkers the rest of creation usually refers to New York's Penn Station as simply Penn Station. I have never heard someone refer to Newark's as Penn Station in common usage and when people have not heard them say Newark clearly on the loudspeaker, most people have mistaken it for New York. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per User:Gfoley4 and User:Hpelgrift. ----DanTD (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Pennsylvania Station (or actually "Penn Station") is the common name. People oly use "New York" in describing it when disambiguation is needed, which we already take care of with the Wikipedia-standard parenthetical disambiguator. Newark is usually disambiguated in common usage precisely because the undisambigiated form is understood to refer to the New York version of Penn Station. (This doesn't mean I support the Newark move though, as it would be inconsistent with the other Penn Stations, including Baltimore, which is also always commonly called Penn Station by the Maryland locals.) oknazevad (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is correct. Due to the fact that there are multiple "Pennsylvania Stations", Wikipedia's Manual of Style on disambiguation specifies a parenthetical suffix. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Random comments prompted by the link to the disambiguation page: Firstly, there's also an article Pennsylvania Station which is possibly redundant. And, secondly, some of those items listed on the disambiguation page are mis-named, as they are titled using the NRHP names, which are often descriptions, not actual names of the buildings. For example Pennsylvania Railroad Station (Hobart, Indiana). Was it actually called "Penn Station" during it's actual life as a train station, or is that just the NRHP's description of the building? oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - First, people just call it "Penn Station," not "New York Penn Station." Second, "Penn Station" is a shorthand nickname and not the official proper-noun designation. We New Yorkers shorthand "the Empire State Building" to just "the Empire State," and we used to call the World Trade Center "the Twin Towers," but we wouldn't title a Wikipedia article anything but "Empire State Building" or "World Trade Center".--Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Whoops, forgot this. =p As per what I said. surprised no one took issue with my 'ad urbem' attacks, ha! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both What matters is what is the common name as documented in reliable sources. Many sources document that the New York one is historically known as Pennsylvania Station. About the Newark, New Jersey one, the sources in its article aren't so clear. Most sources used in the article do not show a clear name for the station. One mentions "Historic Newark Penn Station, located right in the heart of downtown Newark". The New York City subway source calls it Pennsylvania Station and also calls it Penn Station and also calls it Newark Penn Station. The airport directory source calls it Pennsylvania Railway Station but that may be to emphasize it is not an airport. I have no idea what reliable sources call this Newark one, but I oppose moving it to a new name also without adequate documentation. --doncram 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of passengers

The article says that Penn Station serves 600,000 passengers a day. This number is completely unsourced. The Encyclopedia of New York City is listed as a reference, but I have a copy of the second edition and nowhere does it say Penn Station serves 600,000 person per day. While it does say that it sometimes serves 1000 persons per 90 seconds (600,000 a day is equal to 625 per 90 seconds), this is likely to be only during rush hours and not a constant for all days and times.

Doing the math, you'll find that 600,000 x 365 = 219 million passengers a year. By contrast, the article states that 19.8 million riders were served here by NJ Transit in 2007, and 8.3 million by Amtrak in 2010. Though no number for LIRR is given, the LIRR Wikipedia page states an annual ridership of 83 million (of whom many do not terminate their journeys at Penn Station). Approximately 50 million passengers use (enter or exit) the 34th St subway stations at Seventh Avenue (1, 2 and 3 trains) and Eighth Avenue (A, C and E) combined, but most do not transfer to trains at Penn Station (probably neither does the majority of riders of the M34, M16, M18, M20 and Q32 buses). Even if we add the total number of subway passengers (50 million), Long Island Rail Road (taking the highest possible value of 83 million), NJT (~ 20 million), Amtrak (~8.5 million), and maybe another 10 million from NYC buses, the sum (171.5 million) is well short of 219 million. The number might make sense if we assume reduced ridership on weekends and holidays, but it must be remembered that the numbers I have quoted for subway, LIRR and buses are actually total ridership, not those who connect to trains/terminate journeys at Penn Station. Besides, people connecting to LIRR/Amtrak/NJT from the subway or bus really shouldn't be counted twice, and in fact shouldn't be counted at all, since the subway and buses are not part of Penn Station and the rail services at Penn are (except LIRR) managed by completely different entities (NJT and Amtrak) from the MTA.

According to a link to a LIRR ridership count on this site (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/), about 200,000 LIRR riders use Penn Station on weekdays, and presumably less on weekends, so the total number is less than 70 million per year. That number, plus about 20 million for NJT and 8.5 million for Amtrak gives a total passenger counts for Penn Station of 98.5 million per year, which is only 270,000 per day. There is something seriously amiss in the ridership numbers.Avman89 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. Well put.Dogru144 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language

This is not an example of it: "Its destruction left a deep and lasting wound in the architectural consciousness of the city. A famous photograph of a smashed caryatid in the landfill of the New Jersey Meadowlands struck a guilty chord." Suggest much more neutral language. --67.209.1.91 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Merger

Because of the merger into United Airlines, what will the President's club become or re-branded as? That portion of the article needs to be updated. --Mfs1013 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The rubble

All that grannit columns, floor and stair slabs of marbel, all the wall stone, must have survived some where in the Midowland land fill, no? That is too much hard stone to just disappear unless it was reused somewhere. I know some of the sculptures were, but almost none else. Is there are photographic/archaelogical record of where the rubble now is and in what state of survival? CAN they be used to RECONSTRUCT the Penn Station when New York grows up in the next century or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.22.193 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

New Haven and Lehigh Valley service

If this station also served New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad trains and Lehigh Valley Railroad trains, as well as those with the railroad of it's namesake, why can't the article have the Category:Stations along Lehigh Valley Railroad lines along with Category:Stations along New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad lines? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because they were there on trackage rights along Pennsylvania owned lines, not their own lines. Just as we wouldn't say this was a station along a B&O line even if they did use it during WWII. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing on the latter point, this project was under the aegis of the Pennsylvania Railroad, hence the name, Pennsylvania Station.

Three different stations within one

There are different stations sections, for Amtrak trains, for New Jersey Transit trains, and for Long Island Rail Road trains. When were they divided as such? Shouldn't this be part of the article?

There presentist problems with Wikipedia, i.e., articles are often written from the perspective of the present, without consideration of the past. When the new station was in place there was no Amtrak. The south-bound trains were mainly Pennsylvania RR trains, aside from a few joint (with other companies) trains such as the Southern Crescent and the Florida-bound trains. Many of the New Jersey-bound routes of today only recently came into the station, such as NJ Transit's Dover lines (which used to only go to Hoboken). The LIRR was a property of the Penn RR until New York State bought controlling stock in 1966. There have been statements on this page pertaining to New York and New Haven trains. Their historic presence at this station (aside from GCT) should be explained, as the default station for these trains had been Grand Central.

Also, the article does not address when all north-bound intercity routes to Buffalo and beyond, and New England had been channeled into this station, away from their traditional station, Grand Central Terminal.Dogru144 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts. Firstly, that saying there's really three stations is very much overstating the nature of the modern station. Yes, there's three waiting rooms, but the physical plant of the tracks is now and always has been one station. Secondly, trains from New England via the Hell Gate Bridge have been part of the station's services for a century. Nothing new about that at all.

If anything, I would be entirely too concerned with a) overloading this article with details more appropriate for other articles, such as the ones on the services, which can sufficiently explain the changes that have occurred, especially since the changes usually involved changes to the physical plant at locations well outside Penn Station itself, and b) It is far to easy with historical buildings to easily loose sight of the current nature of the place as a more active than ever working train station. Because that is what Penn Station is: the busiest train station in Americas, by a wide margin. oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The split-off of NJT space already is discussed in the article ("Current structure (1968–present day)" section). But I agree with oknazevad that there is too much detail about some serives for an overview article. Or at least makes too much of a distinction between the services and the current facilities. I was about to agree with the omission of NJT-concourse history because there's no mention of it in the "Services: Commuter rail: New Jersey Transit" section. DMacks (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Error in statistics

The second sentence is comparing Amtrak and commuter rail without subway for Penn to commuter rail plus subway for Grand Central. Penn Station has nearly twice the rail ridership.

Also the Fodor article estimate of 900,000 total including subway is wrong. Grand Central subway station has 150,000 daily weekday riders. The 2 Penn Station subway stations have about 160,000 total daily weekday riders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.139.174 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archive ready

In case nobody has noticed, I created a talk page archive for this page and Grand Central Terminal on November 6, 2013. Feel free to add and arrange old messages at your own discretion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just did it. I was hoping for help, along with the new talk archive page for Grand Central Terminal. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Overload

This article had an overload problem with redundancy, duplication and timetable information. There is no need to repeat information about services twice in the Infobox. Some route details, because of their complexity, are better expanded and explained in the body of the article. I have trimmed a bit but I think some things still need to be better organized, edited and reduced. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of services with colorboxes is standard for US railway station articles. Info should be presented first in the infobox, then elaborated in the prose (such as in cases like this), especially in a highly-viewed article about a big station like Penn Station (this article, with 67275 views in the past month, is one of the most popular New York City-related articles). Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why did you revert the correction of "Image" to "File"? That is housekeeping!
• What part of Wikipedia is not a timetable do you disagree with? External bus routes should not be detailed here. Train operation is relevant and complex enough to warrant further explanations in the body of the article.
• Yes {{{services}}} should be in the Infobox but the {{{line}}} information, which is repeated under {{{services}}}, is redundant and overstretches the box unnecessarily. If anything, Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) is the line. Why do we need to repeat the same information up to four times?

Did you take a good look what was done here, or is you attitude "That's the way its always been done"? Well that is wrong! The station should be the focus of the article - not train service. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Image" and "File" namespaces are the same, just as "Wikipedia", "WP", and "project" namespaces are the same. What housekeeping needs to be done?
• The Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) consists of the Ronkonkoma Branch and that's it. The infobox lists the services themselves, not the tracks. Anyway, the s-line is no place to describe the services — that is to explain the next stops of the services, not the services themselves. Only including the services in the info box but not in the text itself defeats the purpose.

What? Your reply makes no sense. "S-line" templates are designed for services, including successive stations, line and color. We don't need redundant "rail color box" templates in the Infobox when they only contain line and color. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In minor stations it may well be, but this station has over 30 services, a list of colorboxes would be better in this case. Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The station, and its services, are the focuses of the article. A station has little meaning without services. The services are an integral part of the station articles, but not the service histories or descriptions. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course we need information in what rail services are provided by the station. What is not needed is the redundancy and prominence given to those services. This overloading is to the detriment of the history and construction of the station, which get relegated to the bottom of the page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• You seem unwilling to have a logical discussion so I will just leave this, which I see as a messy article, to you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"You seem unwilling to have a logical discussion" – That's not true at all, I want to discuss the reason why you're removing the service info. What makes you think that I "seem unwilling to have a logical discussion"? Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because I want to retain the {{{services}}} info and remove the {{{line}}} info, which you can't see is redundant. WTF are you talking about? Secondarywaltz (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not redundant. Both the services and the s-line are present in virtually every single article about U.S. train stations. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe there is an information "overload". The operations of the station are simply quite complicated. discussing different aspects in several different ways is not "redundant", but makes the information more manageable and better organized.

The information for all three railroads should be presented consistently; I do not support at all the body text for Amtrak referring to the infobox, with commentary in the body for Long Island and New Jersey. Any trimming should be done carefully, not wholesale. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is This Right?

Is 600,000 people moving through every day correct? If so, please cite your source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcat9 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is there. It's the New York Times.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is even another source after that which gives a higher figure of 650,000.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Buses

Does anyone have any reasons for keeping the buses section. It has no citations and as far as I can tell none of these buses actually use the terminal, they simply stop nearby but not at the terminal itself. This could also be an attempt at advertising. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

United Airlines ticket office

Why is this being removed? It's part of the station, like the waiting areas and concourses are. Epic Genius (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, it is a rather large ticketing office. About as large as the train ticketing office. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Shevat 5775 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason to mention it. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

First, it was placed under "services" which it was not. United Airlines never "serviced" the station. second, it's not notable and even mentioning it borders on an advertisement. I'm not even convinced Vamoose bus should be mentioned since they don't actually stop at the station. There is no need for it. If you still disagree please explain why. Thanks!21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly31121993 (talk • contribs)

It is the only United Airlines ticket office listed by them in continental USA! That seems important enough to mention. Please sign your comments. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty notable, and I think he did, but used five tildes by accident (which puts a time) instead of four. Three results in just your name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Shevat 5775 23:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this office, being notable, can be listed in a section entirely on its own. Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide a source that mentions that it is the only United Airlines ticket office left in the entire U.S. and that that is somehow notable than, yes, I agree it can be included, although not under services.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the reference for that information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Wbm1058 (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → Penn Station – While Pennsylvania Station might be its historic name, the station is much better known in reliable sources as "Penn Station", making that form its common name (i.e., the few sources that call it "Pennsylvania Station" are historic, but historic sources still predominantly call it Penn Station).[1][2][3][4][5] I'd also contend that this station is the primary topic for "Penn Station" (rather than the redirect to Pennsylvania Station) as searches for "Penn Station" stack the New York station results far above any other Penn or Pennsylvania Stations. (The traffic to the NYC station is an order of magnitude higher than the others as well.) Alternatively, it is sometimes disambiguated as "New York Penn Station", though I believe the proposal as proposed to be the most fitting solution. czar 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose on multiple levels. Firstly, there's an issue of WP:TONE. While the "Penn Station" nickname is very widely used, it's used with an understanding that it is a nickname, and that the full name is Pennsylvania Station. Secondly, all the other Pennsylvania Stations, such as Newark and Baltimore, which are just as readily nicknamed "Penn Station"; your proposed name is utterly ambiguous, even in its own metropolitan area. The current name is unambiguous and not a nickname. It should remain. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of WP:TONE? It doesn't appear to say anything about article titles. What is your evidence that it is solely a nickname? The books linked above describe a definitive and unambiguous Penn Station without need for a New York clarifier—why would a national/international book do that if it were just a local nickname? The other Penn Stations do not have anywhere near equivalent sources or prominence by that name. czar 01:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the evidence of a nickname, Pennsylvania Railroad originally built both versions of the station, but was merged into Penn Central Railroad before it was done. The station kept the name. Also, it doesn't really matter if the one in New York is more prominent than those in other parts of the country. They're still called "Pennsylvania Station" or "Penn Station" and the disambiguation is necessary. Therefore, any reasonable editor should Strongly Oppose your proposal. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OPPOSE, per --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The established consensus at USSTATION, among others, is that signage is not a reliable source, whether you use that image to argue for "Pennsylvania" or the image in the article infobox to argue for "Penn". --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not presenting formal research as to the official name, only providing an example of why the current name remains appropriate. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not a clear primary topic. WP:USSTATION dictates that if this is not the primary topic, it should be disambiguated by city. But "New York Penn Station" works fine. epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And there's also the article called Pennsylvania Station, which is, surprisingly for me, a standalone article about the name "Pennsylvania Station." The Pennsylvania Railroad named a lot of their terminals "Pennsylvania Station" or "Penn Station," so this is by no means the primary topic. epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - This is the kind of crap I've been warning people about. The knee-jerk anti-qualification crusades are turning station articles throughout Wikipedia into disasters, and are going make an even bigger mess of those related to the New York Tri-State area. It must be reverted. throughout TWP. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cut the angry rant Dan. Consensus was against you, and for good reason: there's absolutely no reason for readers to not know where to find an article because of some over-systematic pre-disambiguation. No one else seems to be so wedded to system over practical considerations. Get over it. This move request has nothing to do with that and is totally not the place for you to rant. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, if people like User:Cuchullain had their way Springfield Junction (Long Island Rail Road) and Oceanside (LIRR station) would have the same qualifier, despite the fact that one applies to a station, and the other applies to a junction, or some other structure. At least he has enough sense to oppose this move. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So? What's wrong with Oceanside station (Long Island Rail Road)? It's straightforward, makes clear its talking about a station, and is easy to understand for someone who doesn't already know the naming conventions. That's the point; someone shouldn't have to know the conventions ahead of time. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DanTD inadvertently makes the case for why standard disambiguation is necessary. The idea that "(Long Island Rail Road)" is a suitable qualifier for a junction but not a station is silly. Whatever difference exists is so esoteric as to be inscrutable to anyone who's not already intimately familiar with the former conventions of this one WikiProject, which is impossible as they weren't written down, or at all similar to standard Wikipedia practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In any case, "LIRR" is a better qualifier than "Long Island Rail Road," whether "station" is inside or outside the parentheses. That said, I would not ordinarily support mass-moving the LIRR articles because they already have "station" in the qualifier, and USSTATION is a waste of energy better expended elsewhere.. epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If "LIRR" is recognizable, it's a fine disambiguator, but it's likely that a lot of the articles don't need a parentheses at all if we just use standard disambiguation. The problem with just leaving them where they is that they're incredibly difficult to find for anyone not already familiar with this highly idiosyncratic way of titling articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you're so convince that what I'm saying is "silly," I'd like to point out that Springfield Junction (LIRR) already redirects to Springfield Junction (Long Island Rail Road). There's also a Springfield Junction (LIRR station) redirect, but that never should've been made, because there was never a station there. The current system at least has some general consistency, that you're bent on destroying, and some administrators and editors have made worse moves than you ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Springfield Junction doesn't need any disambiguation, as there aren't any other articles. But the point is that on a distressingly high number of articles, there's been no attempt to disambiguate the titles. People looking for the Long Island Rail Road's Woodmere station would be most likely to search for it as, well, "Woodmere station". However, neither "Woodmere station" nor Woodmere connects them to the article. If they didn't already know that for obscure reasons the article is titled "Woodmere (LIRR station)", despite the lack of any other station called that, they'd never find it. The biggest problem with the deprecated convention is that it puts forced consistency above getting readers to the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, in case you didn't notice after you posted this message, there are other Springfield Junctions in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. There may not be articles for those yet, but somebody obviously wants them, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the effort to create the red links. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia disambiguates based on subjects we cover, not on subjects that exist. A dab page with one article and 3 red links helps no one. This kind of thing is another problem with these unwritten conventions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the existence of the others doesn't help either, whether articles on them exist or not. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Added Woodmere Station to disambiguation page since this was posted. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that people should have left the naming convention alone because it wasted time and resources, but it would still waste resources to revert all these mass moves, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The people who are making all these moves never should've made them in the first place. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know, but now we have an inconsistent naming convention. At least the NYC Subway stations should still be left alone. However, WP:USSTATION dictates that Amtrak and smaller rail systems' stations are moved to the shorter name, if it's not already covered by a project guideline. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I'm afraid. I don't see clear evidence that this is the primary topic of the term "Penn Station", which currently redirects to the general Pennsylvania Station article. That said, I'd be swayed by evidence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose; if anything, Penn Station should be changed to redirect to Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation), which lists a number of different rail stations colloquially referred to as Penn Station in the city/state where they're located. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - How do you feel about merging Pennsylvania Station with Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation)? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I've thought about proposing that before. On one hand, they do seem rather redundant, as Pennsylvania Station is mostly just a list of stations named "Pennsylvania Station". On the other hand, disambig pages have pretty specific guidelines that are often applied rather rigorously, and there's quite a bit more than fits the guidelines at the article. I'm not sure how much of that is needed, though. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that "Pennsylvania Station" is a perfectly reasonable, concise article that discusses the notable issue of several stations baring the same name. It gives a very quick snapshot of each station's name and history, and provides a quick link to each main article. The disambiguation page serves a slightly different purpose, being purely a briefly annotated list of articles using similar names. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, looking it over some more. There's also items there that wouldn't be on the disambiguation page because they're not commonly k own as "Pennsylvania Station", at least not any time in recent history. So those would likely be lost if there was a merger as they wouldn't be appropriate to list on a disambiguation page. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a separate discussion that should be moved to Talk:Pennsylvania Station. That said, I strongly disagree with merging a disambiguation with an article, first because it messes up link disambiguation on these pages, but second because that page would need disambiguation itself to distinguish from the other "Pennsylvania Stations" that aren't related to the PRR. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize, I didn't mean to start a serious discussion about this topic here. I just meant it would make more sense to propose that (in the appropriate talk page) than this proposal. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and for the record, I originally asked that question because as oknazevad pointed out on the one hand the two Pennsylvania Station articles seem redundant, and on the other one is clearly a disambiguation page. Knowing this I would have to oppose your suggestion, because "Penn Station" is strictly the nickname for Pennsylvania Station. Would anyone care to split this discussion off, or would you rather just declare it a dead issue? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead issue to me. I didn't intend it to become a "live" issue in the first place. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support as the common name and far and away the primary topic for the term. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just as a point of inquiry, are you conducting your search from the NYC area, or even the eastern U.S.? Google tends to locate the most relevant search results based on geolocation. If you search in Baltimore or newark, you may get different results. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Inappropriate question; struck. epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Doing a general Google search for "Penn Station" brought up for me both the restaurants and articles and books about "Pennsylvania Station", spelled fully out. I do not think that "Penn Station" can be definitively shown to be a primary topic based on Google results. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A general Google search includes unreliable sources. A Google Books search, as above, while not foolproof, is more reliable. Additionally, did you include the "pws" parameter to prevent search bias, as the link above does? --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• • James, I think you're focusing on the wrong issue here. Wikipedia readers are used to landing on a page with the subject's proper name, and Penn Station is not the station's proper name, it's a nickname, and it's a nickname shared by multiple stations in multiple cities. If you wanted Penn Station to redirect to Pennsylvania Station (New York City) (which I would oppose by the way, this is a terrible idea), that could at least be defended because it was just taking people to the page clearly marked as about New York's Penn Station. But actually having people land on Penn Station could create the false impression that there is only one Penn Station, which is wrong. When you're in Baltimore, you don't tell a cab driver you want to go to Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), you just say "Penn Station". When the PRR was still thriving, "Penn Station" was shorthand for Pennsylvania Station in many cities, not just New York's. That's why Penn Station currently redirects to Pennsylvania Station (which describes the many Penn Stations, and lists them out), and why it would be a terrible idea for it to redirect to Pennsylvania Station (New York City) (which is but one such station). Using Pennsylvania Station (New York City) as the actual page name clarifies that the article is only about New York's Penn Station, and not the other Penn Stations in existence. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers are used to landing on a page with the subject's proper name

The article title policy is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying.

actually having people land on Penn Station could create the false impression that there is only one Penn Station

This is what hatnotes are for.

When the PRR was still thriving, "Penn Station" was shorthand for Pennsylvania Station in many cities, not just New York's.

While that may have been true historically, the New York station is the primary topic with respect to usage and long-term significance in English language reliable sources currently.

Using Pennsylvania Station (New York City) as the actual page name clarifies that the article is only about New York's Penn Station

This is what hatnotes and the article's lede are for. Titles should be concise.

--Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy WP:COMMONNAME you point to does not mandate that a slightly more common name for an article override consensus that a slightly more precise name is appropriate given the nature of a topic. Given the existence of at least 8 stations currently or formerly known as "Pennsylvania Station" or "Penn Station", only consensus can decide the best way of presenting the material. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The policy does not necessarily mandate the common name. The title should be decided by consensus. I did not say otherwise. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose My Penn Station is Newark, New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is there's many Pennsylvania Stations. Not just one. And while I don't discount that New York's is the best known, I don't think it's so overwhelming that it can go without disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of these stations' existence. Certainly, we would not be having this discussion otherwise. The argument you make is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out two other issues; Besides the existing Pennsylvania Station in New York City, you also have two subway stations partially named for Penn Station that are designed to serve the railroad terminal; 34th Street – Penn Station (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) and 34th Street – Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line). Between those three, and the one in Newark, you have four in the New York Tri-State area. Back in 2008, somebody wanted to merge the subway stations into this article, which would've been wrong as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above. There's an additional confusion and an additional disambiguation that might result from using the short term. "Penn" is used all over the place (at least in Pennsylvania) as an abbreviation for "Pennsylvania", e.g. Penn State University for Pennsylvania State University and just "Penn" for University of Pennsylvania, PennDOT for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Using the short form where the long form is totally clear just opens a can of worms. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The use of LIRR Today in this article

The LIRR Today is a reliable third-party source, since the writer got the info from the MTA.

On a side note, "Empire Station" is the proposed name for Penn Station's replacement, as per News and Notes from The LIRR Today – January 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to actually be able to see that, but as a closed group page, with no confirmation that his claimed information is valid, I don't think it's an appropriate source. If his stuff is from the MTA, it should be pu locally available, and that should be used as the source, not the blog. If it's not, it's just hearsay and not a good source. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"In the Governor’s presentation and the accompanying documentation, there were some places where the station complex was referred to as “Empire State Station” or “Empire Station”, and that’s caused some consternation on the part of those that are fond of the station’s current name. Personally, I have no real attachment to the name Penn Station—the Pennsylvania Railroad is long gone out of business, there’s very few traces of the existing station left, and, no, we’re not in Pennsylvania. I’m of the opinion that the LIRR ought to just refer to the station as “New York”, like NJT and Amtrak do, until East Side Access opens, since that’s the name of the place where the station is located. The names of the LIRR’s stations are awfully inconsistent… we have Penn Station, Hunterspoint Avenue, Broadway, Merillon Avenue, Nassau Boulevard, Country Life Press, Gibson, Glen Street, and Centre Avenue which are particular locations within a large neighborhood or village, and largely useless out of context if you’re not familiar with the area. And then we have Garden City, Valley Stream, Glen Cove, and East Rockaway, which are the names of places, but not the only stations in those villages or cities (so they’re the exact opposite of the last set of stations). Then there’s Nostrand Avenue which is the name of a location, but there’s no other stations in Crown Heights, and Flushing-Main Street, which has both the neighborhood name and the identifying location, and lastly “Atlantic Terminal (Brooklyn)” which is the exact opposite of that. It’s all very confusing if you’re not familiar with the system. New York-Empire Station is a good name for the complex." LIRR Today You could go to http://lists.thelirrtoday.com to get his sources and sign up--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

OK... I can just see why this may not be considered a reliable source—the writer puts his personal opinion there. However, the information about the tracks are sourced to his webpage, which, at the very least, tells facts, albeit with a spice of opinions. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not just about opinions being included. It's the fact that it's a personal blog that cannot be accessed by the public at large because it's invitation only. It's a double whammy of unacceptable sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Are the maps official maps that are simply hosted on the blog, or sketches the blogger made based on other information? If official, they could be cited directly to the MTA, with only a courtesy link to the blog. Even if unofficial, removing this as a citation is unacceptable, unless a stronger source were substituted, as this would leave significant portions of the article uncited. The lack of free availability on the web is not itself a reason to disqualify a source. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 18:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think someone created these maps based on MTA data, but it's not an official map. Anyway, you would have to ask the website's owner for access via Google here. epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• So, let me get this. I can create a personal blog, hide it from the public and only allow some people to look at it, then boldly go around and link to it from every Wikipedia LIRR article? That can then be used as a reference? That is acceptable? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thats what I'm saying! I don't care if it's subscription only (even if that subscription is free). Being a subscription only service has never disqualified something as a reference. But being a blog, and there is no other way to describe the site (which I used to visit before it was made private only) does completely disqualify it. Especially when it was made private only because the owner was catching flack from railroad employees about blatant errors. It's not in anyway a reliable source and must be replaced ASAP. Heck, it should be removed outright, just like any citation to a message board post. oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It did use to be a public blog, but it was taken down in July 2014 and hasn't been up every since. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue today is solely the fact that this information is cited to this blog, and has always been attributed to the blog. If the references are to be removed, then the content cited to them must be removed as well. The information, at least in my opinion, is not so obviously wrong to warrant immediate removal, so the references ought to stay until they can be replaced by by better sources. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of the edits to Wikipedia by the owner were in 2013 for the self-promotion of their blog. If that is how it got in here in the first place, does that change the propriety of how these articles were referenced? Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is @Epicgenius: the author of LIRR Today? From what I have seen in the edit history, it was Epicgenius who added the track lay-out content and cited LIRR Today as his source. I agree that using blogs as sources is inappropriate, which puts us in the unfortunate situation we are in today. It is also inappropriate, however, to leave information unsourced, ESPECIALLY if the information came from a disputed source. If the content can be independently verified and cited to another source, that would be best. Otherwise the sources must remain with article content, or both the content and sources must be removed. Leaving unsourced content in the article known to come from an a questionable source is unacceptable. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Zfish118: Sorry for the late response. No, it is Cluefinder42 who is LIRR Today's author. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Stations layout

There is a section on the layout of the platforms and tracks, but is there not a diagram of the layout? Because the explanation is awfully confusing. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved with strong opposes unlikely for consensus to move there are strong opposes, making it unlikely that there is a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC) statement clarified per ping by DMacks 18:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → Pennsylvania Station (New York) – None of the other stations listed at Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation) would be excluded because of the word "City" - either they are in New York City (making the word "City" in the disambiuation irrelevant) or they are outside of New York State (making the word "City" unnecessary). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose. Keep the disambiguator consistent with the title of the article on the city. "New York" is an ambiguous term at best, and natural disambiguation demands including the word "City". oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that New York is ambiguous, the only reasonable meainings are places which this station is located in; and the word City doesn't help disambiguate it from any of these others. For the same reason, the category tree for the borough of Queens is Category:Queens, New York. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? How does "City" not help disambiguate from the state as a whole? I really don't understand how you come to that conclusion. "Queens, New York" is refering to the state, but the city, in that naming, just like a postal address. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The point is that whether the "New York" refers to the state or the city is irrelevant, as the subject is in the city, and notthing in any part of the state has a potential claim for PRIMARYTOPIC over it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're missing my point. If it's in the city, why not just say "New York City", since "New York" does not inherently mean the city. That's the underlying assumption of your request that is mistaken.oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Od Mishehu: If I recall, a widely-advertised WP:RFC happened recently regarding disambiguating New York the city vs. New York the state, but I am not able to locate it at the moment. I think that RFC set some sort of future precedence for title changes such as this one, but I'm not sure if the consensus supports or opposes this move simply because I cannot find the RFC at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of this RFC when I created this nomination, and unless someone can tell me where to find it I can't look it over to reconsider if my nomination is still applicable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Od Mishehu: I think the RFC I was referring to can be found at Talk:New York (state)/Archive 6#RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See the epic discussion at Talk:New York (and the subsequent subpage regarding a requested move) regarding the placement of the article on the state. Summary: inconclusive at best. No consensus to move the state article, but a vague consensus that the state isn't the primary topic for the undisambiguated "New York". Indeed, it read that there's no primary topic. Certainly there was no firm consensus that the city is the primary topic for the undisambiguated name, though that was outside the scope of the most recent RFC. But dropping the "City" from the article on the city is a no go, nor should it be removed from disambiguators, as then the disambiguator is itself too ambiguous; no one should presume the undisambiguated "New York" means the city. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, thius RFC is irrelevant here, since my basic claim is that either way, this Pennsylvania Station, and 3 others listed at Pennsylvania Station (disambiguation), are in "New York", so the "City" component isn't necessary as part of the disambiguator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See my above response. "New York" does not inherently mean the city, and should not be used as a disambiguator when specifying the city, which this parenthetical does. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed its possible lack of relevancy as well after reading through it. Didn't mean to basically throw in a red herring; I just recalled that it had a lot of participation and I think it was so massive that it was advertised on the watchlist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, per oknazevad. This appears to be yet another misguided effort to eliminate states from city names. Granted, the state isn't in the name, but it's being done for the same reason. Also none of the other Pennsylvania Stations are located in cities that have the same names as states. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020145355/https://www.som.com/project/moynihan-station-redevelopment-2001-design to http://www.som.com/project/moynihan-station-redevelopment-2001-design
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020124657/https://www.som.com/project/moynihan-station-redevelopment-2007-design to http://www.som.com/project/moynihan-station-redevelopment-2007-design
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226074251/http://www.empire.state.ny.us:80/press/press_display.asp?id=682 to http://www.empire.state.ny.us/press/press_display.asp?id=682

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empire.state.ny.us/press/press_display.asp?id=682
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714141034/http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/TIGER_statement_Friends_of_Moynihan_Station.pdf to http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/TIGER_statement_Friends_of_Moynihan_Station.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pennsylvania Station (New York City). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/grand_central_terminal_at_100/176190/grand-central-terminal-at-100--legal-battle-nearly-led-to-station-s-demolition
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023437/http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2006/07/a_narrative_history_of_penn_st.html to http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2006/07/a_narrative_history_of_penn_st.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030828/http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2005/08/project_timeline.html to http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2005/08/project_timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304063629/http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2005/08/moynihan_station_animation.html to http://www.moynihanstation.org/newsite/2005/08/moynihan_station_animation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206133151/https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=NYP to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=NYP

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

LIRR station naming convention discussion

There is a discussion occurring regarding the naming of LIRR station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Pennsylvania Station New York, NY
Amtrak inter-city rail station Long Island Rail Road commuter rail terminal NJ Transit commuter rail terminal
Entrance on Seventh Avenue, with Madison Square Garden and Penn Plaza in the background
General information
Location	7th & 8th Avenues, between 31st & 33rd Streets New York, NY 10001
Coordinates	40°45′02″N 73°59′38″W
Owned by	Amtrak
Line(s)	Northeast Corridor, Empire Corridor

I would suggest that "Pennsylvania Station" followed by "New York, NY" on the next line is more intuitive for the station name parameter, even if it slightly inconsistent with the order of the list of railroad served Immediately below. This way, it is more consistent with the article name, and the Amtrak schedule name serves to naturally disambiguate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree Feankly, I wouldn't use any railroad's styling for this infobox. Yes, Amtrak owns the page, but its largest user is the LIRR, NJ Transit also uses it, and all three have signage in differing styles there. Platform signage doesn't look like the infobox from any of them. Remember, the infobox styling is meant to emulate ststion signage, not timetable naming. Plus it doesn't match the article title. It seems to me to. E a step too far to make it look the way it does. oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well, it's because this station is owned by Amtrak that we use the Amtrak styling (as opposed to LIRR, NJ Transit, or generic styling). But yes, this new version of the name looks fine. epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Busiest train station in the Western hemisphere

The claim should be substantiated. US and UK exclude subway passengers from the count. By that measure, the claim may be true. Most other countries appear to include them. By that measure, there appears to be a number of train stations in Europe with higher traffic figures.
Example: Gare du Nord (France), 214 to 270M passengers/year depending on source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-busiest-railway-stations-in-europe.html
https://www.parisinsidersguide.com/gare-du-nord-paris.html
https://www.gares-sncf.com/sites/default/files/field_files/2015-06/paris-nord_station_-_transforming_-_press_kit.pdf
Ultimately one must decide if "the busiest" (a vague claim) should be based on partial or full counts. Alternatively, one could say "one of the busiest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.76.163 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Paris is in the eastern hemisphere, as is most of continental Europe. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → New York Penn Station
• Pennsylvania Station (Newark) → Newark Penn Station
• Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore) → Baltimore Penn Station

– WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL 150.250.5.30 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → New York Penn Station – "Penn Station" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and "New York Penn Station" is the WP:NATURAL disambiguation. 24.228.135.248 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose like last time. oknazevad (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose, per the last three discussions. Cards84664 02:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snow close station name is Pennsylvania station. 125.238.44.111 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous consensus and discussions ~ Amkgp 💬 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Required revision of this article due to the opening of Moynihan Train Hall

As of mid-January, 2021, much of the information at the end of the article concerning the usage of Penn Station is no longer accurate or relevant due to the opening of Moynihan Train Hall across the street. This article needs to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:8A07:5D00:2410:E1B7:E97A:B79 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently, Moynihan Train Hall has its own Wikipedia article. Maybe they should be merged, and the current Penn Station Article Can have a much bigger emphasis on the new concourse. A similar situation exists with the World Trade Center station (PATH) article. While Wikipedia describes it as only a PATH staion, it also servies as a entrance an concrose for the 1, 2, 3, A, C, E, N, R, and W trains. --Rckania (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"New York railway station" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New York railway station and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#New York railway station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Terminal?

Does a railway terminal need all of its trains to terminate, or a majority, or just some, in order to earn that title? This station is referred to as a "terminal" in some portions of the article (and at {{NYC terminals}}), even though it's clear there are some through-services (what portion?). In the Grand Central Terminal article, Penn is distinctly pointed out as a "station", unlike the east side terminal. ɱ (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The only through-services, sadly, are Amtrak, though I have been advocating for through-running commuter rail services. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Penn's not a terminal no matter how you slice it. That template should probably be refactored. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It is the last stop for nearly all trains in the station. It is "the end of a railroad or other transport route, or a station at such a point." It is a terminal. Just because the tracks go through, it does not mean that it is not a terminal. @Epicgenius:, what do you think? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My thinking is that Penn Station is indeed a terminus for many routes. It is certainly a terminal for the LIRR and for NJ Transit, as trains discharge all of their passengers here and then head into West Side Yard or Sunnyside Yard, respectively. However, it is not strictly a "terminal station" (at least not for all trains), since Amtrak trains can enter and exit from both the west and the east. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a terminal in the sense that services terminate there, and everyone must depart the train. That most of those trains run through to storage yards opposite the station from the incoming direction (the West Side Yards for the LIRR, Sunnyside for NJ Transit) doesn't change the fact that it's the terminus of service for the vast majority of the people using it. And since tracks 1 through 4 are dead end tracks, it literally is a terminal for the trains coming into those tracks, so it physically is a terminal at least in part.

The whole digression at the Grand Central article is entirely about why calling that place "Grand Central Station" is technically incorrect. It's just a railfan pet peeve being given justification with pedantry, and doesn't affect the fact that for all practical purposes Penn Station is a terminal for the commuter trains that use it.

Finally, the linked template doesn't actually say "terminal" in its text, except for the three stations with that as part of their name (Grand Central, Hoboken, and Atlantic Terminal, for those keeping score). The header says "major railroad stations" as it also includes the major transfer stations, like Jamaica and Secaucus. Nothing on the template needs to be changed. oknazevad (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

An interesting take. I do see that the template mentions "terminals" in its purple-shaded sidebar, even differentiating terminals from stations. Not sure why that's even relevant to note there. I am also thinking of moving Railroad terminals serving New York City, as some others listed are stations, not terminals, nor is the distinction really that important for the purpose of the article. ɱ (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, regardless of current services, I'm sure in the 113-year history of the station, the country-wide through services were frequent and important, and thus it's not called "Pennsylvania Terminal". ɱ (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but the PRR subsidiary that oversaw the building of it was the "Pennsylvania Tunnel and Terminal Railroad" (emphasis added). oknazevad (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I could make the argument that that new information supports my statement, in that the company consciously chose to alter the name of the station after construction. ɱ (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes a terminal a terminal is track configuration, not service behavior. A significant number of the services at Basel SBB, for example, terminate there, because of Basel's importance and geographic location. It has some terminating tracks, but it's not a terminal. Almost all of Penn's tracks are through tracks. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster: "a freight or passenger station that is central to a considerable area or serves as a junction at any point with other lines". Doesn't have to have only dead-end tracks to be considered a terminal. That's an etymological fallacy. Any major connecting hub can be called a terminal, much like in electrical circuitry. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)