Talk:Q38 (New York City bus)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Q38 (New York City bus). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.example.com/map.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Q38 (New York City bus). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160304025857/http://web.mta.info/busco/schedules/q038cur.pdf to http://web.mta.info/busco/schedules/q038cur.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Q38 (New York City bus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Username6892 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My review of this article is mostly done. Expect some comments soon. Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See bottom

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See bottom

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• In the lead "It operates 7 days a week except late nights". Midnight seems pretty late night to me, based on the schedule (ref 9). If you meant that it does not run overnights, please clarify. (1a)
  • The MTA classifies "late night" as overnight. This page just goes by the MTA's classifications of late-night service, but to my knowledge, this has never been brought up before as an issue, so I will fix it. (Disclosure, I am not the nominator, but have fixed some of the issues in this page.) epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't mention the history. (1b)
  •  Added
• Would refs 11 and 14 be needed on the Route section (they show the same thing (the route))? Ref 15 may not be needed either.
  • I think this should be fine. It doesn't quite violate WP:CITEKILL yet. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• In the history section, I don't think you need 6 refs to prove the 1934 changes.
  •  Fixed This is WP:CITEKILL, though. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are sections with 3-5 refs in the 3rd and 2nd last paragraphs. Are all of them needed? (1a)
  •  Fixed
• "The corona end of the route was later extended" When? (1a)
  •  Added
• Is ref 35 needed when refs 33 and 34 already cover it? (1a)
  •  Removed
• There wasn't anything in ref 13 to suggest that the buses were the specific new flyer model mentioned.
  (2c)
  •  Removed
• I can't verify the fultonhistory.com refs, they give server errors every time I try to open them. Dead link?
  
  • Yes, this is a recurring problem. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• "by the 1950s, the route was renamed the Q50". Failed verification, given the ref is the 1946 map
  (2c)
  •  Fixed
• "remained at LaGuardia depot until January 2010", source doesn't say January (2c)
  •  Removed
• The last ~4 lines are uncited (2c)
  •  Removed Plus, this is trivia.

Given that this is my first review, I will request a 2nd opinion to make sure I didn't make any errors. Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Username6892. I think this is a pretty thorough review, though I might be involved now that I fixed many of the issues. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • After an additional fix I made myself, I will now pass this article, though the fulton history issue shold be dealt with before taking this further. Username⁶⁸⁹² 23:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the former operator of the Q38 bus route was not compensated for the route's takeover, as their equipment was considered obsolete? Source: Long Island Daily Press 1936. "The Affiliated Bus Company originally requested $25,000 in cash for its equipment, and eventually agreed to convey title for such equipment for the sum of $4,800 in cash. As the equipment was considered by the Triboro Company obsolete and worthless, the offer was rejected."
  • ALT1:... that the former operator of the Q38 bus route was given several temporary operating franchises before receiving a permanent franchise in 1936? Source: Numerous; see article

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Beatrice Inn

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk) and Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

• This article is a newly promoted GA and is new enough and long enough. I prefer ALT0 as ALT1 is less interesting to a general reader, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• The QPQ has already been used on Template:Did you know nominations/Riverside Park (Manhattan). Please provide another one. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah: Oops. I did another QPQ. epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Round-robin move

@Epicgenius: Could you help do a round-robin move to move this to Q38 bus? Thanks. (I will try to fix some double redirects from the various moves tomorrow). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, sure. I've moved the page. (However, if anyone objects to the move, we might need to move this back.) Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This followed the previous Bx12 bus move. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: I have reverted the above move and other similar recent ones, I think this is controversial and needs discussion. I'm not keen on the "Q38 bus" name as it gives no indication of which location this is to be found in. The term also sounds like a type of bus rather than a route, so doesn't do well on the recognition part of the title. Many of the affected bus route numbers are also in use in other cities around the world, so are ambiguous. For example, London Buses route B15 shares its name with B15 (New York City bus). If you still wish to move the pages I suggest a WP:RM is held and a consistent format established, preferably making clear that these are bus routes in NYC (the London example does this quite well for example).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru, my bad, I hadn't even considered that the title would be ambiguous. Thanks for reverting the move. I agree that a mass RM should be opened in this case, since places like Washington DC and London have had bus routes with the same name. Epicgenius (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Epicgenius: Sorry about doing this without a new larger discussion-there was a previous discussion on Talk:Bx12 bus#Requested move 19 April 2020 about this, so I thought this was more or less settled, which was stupid since it was on a low-trafficked page. We have been doing titles for multiple routes combined like this, such as Bx1 and Bx2 buses. You could do titles like Q38 bus route. I was not thinking of some of the route numbers in other cities (though I should have thought of Washington). No one refers to the B15 as MTA bus route B15 or New York City bus route B15-you could do B15 bus route (New York City) if it really was ambiguous, and since, based on your logic, the existing title could also refer to a type of bus. In any case, we should try to sort out bus titles-either my moves are fine (in whole or partially) or your reversions should be kept and the articles with multiple routes should be moved to different titles. Thanks for reverting the moves, and sorry once again. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: there's no need to apologize... you made a WP:BOLD move, which could have been fine if nobody had disagreed with it... but then it was subsequently contested and reverted, this is a normal part of the WP:RM cycle and no fault on your part. As noted above, my preference is to retain some indicator that it's a NYC bus, either via the present disambiguators or through a natural descriptive name like the London Buses one. Note that there are lots of cases across Wikipedia where we retain a disambiguator even for cases where it's not strictly necessary, just to achieve a uniform format and avoid confusion. For example Kenilworth and Southam (UK Parliament constituency) has a disambiguator even though there's no other Kenilworth and Southam topic on the project. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, it's all right. As Amakuru said above, you moved the pages boldly, and since it's been contested, the next step is to open an RM discussion to determine consensus.

To be honest, I don't think we need "route" in the title; though adding "route" might help clarify that the B15 isn't something like a bus model, it would also make the title longer. A title like "B15 bus (New York City)" or "B15 (New York City bus route)" would be clear enough, in my opinion. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)