User talk:Epicgenius

This is Epicgenius's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83: 7 days

Archives

Archive links by month

Other talk pages:

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Very important userboxes

MORE

This user has more userboxes.

This user has an alternative account named Kylo Ren.

END

This user has no more userboxes.

Top | Talk (new message) | User page | Contribs | User log

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

dyk

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hey, Epicgenius! So here's the thing about dyk: if you haven't created preps, you have no idea what prep-setters and admins at dyk do or what challenges they face. Many editors who are regular nominators and reviewers think they'd be willing to admin, but have never filled preps, and when they become admins and start moving preps to queues, they quickly realize they didn't know what they were volunteering for. A prep-setter doesn't just create a balanced set. They also do a quick re-review on many of the hooks; you get to know whose hooks you don't have to review too heavily, but you always have to at least go check for a recent edit war or tags. If the nominator or the reviewer are new or known to be sloppy, you'll have to do a full re-review of that hook. Often prep-setters have questions they have to ask at the hook, and they deal with pushback from noms/reviewers/passersby for that. Then once you've finished a prep you have to deal with fallout at DYK talk and ERRORS. Admins do the exact same thing -- a re-review, because prep-setters miss things too, then the move (fairly simple), posting questions at DYK talk and pinging involved parties, dealing with pushback from them, and finally any fallout at ERRORS when someone finds an error you missed. So if you think you would be willing to admin at dyk, definitely go fill preps for a while to see if you like it or not. Some people love it -- I did, and I like adminning there -- but not everyone is cut out for it. It's a high-visibility job. People catch your mistakes, and the only way to prevent that is to catch other people's mistakes first. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, thanks for the advice. That is good to know. I think this sort of stuff should be enjoyable for me, even if a bit difficult. I just read the project page on prep areas, and it seems a bit difficult to get a good balance on hooks. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the most fun parts of setting preps. The thing to do for your first prep is pick the bottom empty set (which right now gives you three days to fill it but normally six days.) Count to figure out whether the image hook needs a bio or a non-bio (it alternates by day). Go find one, vet it, and transfer it. That'll let the other prep setters know you'll fill that set. Not that they or an admin won't move stuff in and out if they need it or think another set is better for that hook, but in general one prep-setter works on a set. Then start putting the puzzle together -- no more than four bios (alternating in the set with non-bio), no more than one music/science/military/whatever subject. Not too many from any one country, though 2 - 4 USA hooks will be necessary. A balance of geographical area, not all from English-speaking countries. A balance of long and short. And of course a quirky. It's an art. Don't be afraid to trim or tweak hooks, but read the nom first if you do, as there may have already been discussion. Keep on top of talk in case someone asks a question about one of the hooks in that set, because some people won't realize they need to ping you as the promoter. :) Ping me any time, and Yoninah will often leave pointers on how to improve at your talk. When she stops, you know you're getting near the point of competence. :) —valereee (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subway articles

Once again, very impressive work on very important station complex and line articles. There is more to be added about the change in BMT plans re:Canal Street. Eventually, Clark Street Tunnel should be its own article. Also, the citations for IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line are really messed up and include self-published sources like nycsubway.org, and there is more history that could be added. A lot of my older GA nominations should be looked at again for things like this. Also, for Union Square, it is worth mentioning the impromptu 9/11 memorial, and the post-2016 election post-it notes (https://mashable.com/article/power-of-post-it-note-protest-subway-therapy, https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/post-it-notes-left-union-square-election-preserved-article-1.2913344, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/post-election-subway-therapy-sticky-notes-taken-down-but-not-thrown-out/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/nyregion/subway-election-therapy-wall-sticky-notes.html). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, the pleasure is mine. I do agree that the Clark Street Tunnel should get its own page in the future. I've also noticed that there's a lot more that can be said about the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, especially its construction, and will have to work on it gradually. The biggest mess, though, is the Canal Street article - there are a lot of details about the BMT station that are just not mentioned at the moment, and the article in general needs more refs.

As for the Union Square station, the article already mentions both the 9/11 memorial and the post-it wall (the second paragraph of 14th Street–Union Square station#Artwork). I thought one paragraph would be sufficient, seeing as how the artwork was not sanctioned by the MTA but seems to be covered by multiple reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I missed it somehow. Don't forget the Stantec studies, like the one that found making Clark Street accessible was infeasible, and which provides some sourcing for station layout (i.e. platform length/width). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also is probably worth mentioning the 1990 fire in the Clark Street article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and can get around to that soon. In the meantime, I was looking at the study for Union Square, which says: This technology does not meet ADA standards, and since there is currently no technology that does, there is no fully accessible solution for the southbound platform. We are including an option for providing elevator service to this platform in this report with the understanding that this will not provide a fully accessible solution at this time. So I suppose this means the southbound platform can get an elevator, it just won't be ADA-accessible because gap fillers, by their very nature, are ADA-inaccessible. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Also, unrelated, but the 1990 Clark Street Tunnel fire was very notable, and there were major reports done on fire safety/communication, etc. in its aftermath. It would warrant an article of its own. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the 1990 Clark Street fire should get its own article. (I think the fire happened just east of the Clark Street station, though, not in the tunnel under the river.) In terms of recent NYC Subway disasters, the fire has had at least as much of an impact as the 1991 Union Square derailment or the 1995 Williamsburg Bridge subway collision did. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also-the provisions in the Eastern Parkway Line used for the Clark Street Tunnel connection were initially intended for a line over the Manhattan Bridge. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. If we can find a reliable source for this, I could add it to the Borough Hall or Eastern Parkway Line articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen reliable sources for this-if you cannot find them, I can look for them after I get my final paper for the semester done today. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft Clark Street Tunnel article here: User:Kew Gardens 613/sandbox 7#Clark Street Tunnel. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this article before? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, I have, but thanks for clipping it. The first part of that source seems to largely duplicate the New York Herald Tribune ref that's already in the Fulton Street station article. But it has some info that isn't mentioned in the NYHT source, specifically the 535-foot length of the station. The second part of the source could be used for the Broad Street station article though. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding work on the article. We really shouldn't be using The Station Reporter as a source. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff to be added about flooding/water intrusion problems at Canal. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a report put out. I found two articles I had clipped (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times/98305321/, https://www.newspapers.com/article/times-union/99774843/) Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've noticed quite a bit of info about how Canal Street's proximity to the old Collect Pond contributed to tons of water problems there. I can add these sources in later. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a paper, not a report. I haven't found it online. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is a great source for construction details. I found one article with details on underpinning and other aspects of subway construction from 1919, one on sewer siphons, SI transportation, and Columbus Circle construction Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. I might have to look through this journal to, um, shore up some architectural articles as well. That Canal Street article was really detailed, and I expect the others will be no different. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also one on train dispatching, the Manhattan Bridge Plaza, and the ENY tunnel Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming here, but also Joralemon, and here, excavation, the Atlantic Av improvement, and Brighton Line improvements Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will just add all these links to a subsection of User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do, where we can both track it easily. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signaling, car design, and ventilation, and IRT track design as well Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is this thorough masterpiece on Dual Contracts construction. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 30 days. Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 60 days. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 360 days. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, by the way, we might want to flesh out User:Epicgenius/sandbox/article-draft1, my sandbox on the Manhattan Bridge subway closure. I'm planning to bring the Manhattan Bridge article to GA, which will probably require condensing the Manhattan Bridge#Trackage history section, and the closures are a notable topic that I've been meaning to finish writing about for a while. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius I have been very busy, but, when I have a chance, will try to get back to this. Amazing work on all the bridge articles. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

DYK for 185 Montague Street

On 22 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 185 Montague Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one critic likened the design of 185 Montague Street in New York City to the horns of Count Basie's orchestra? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/185 Montague Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 185 Montague Street), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

^Complex/_Rational 00:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than interfere in constructive editting...

Given the IP user's comment "I will not work alongside you at the article", there is nothing further to discuss here. Additional discussion can take place at Talk:Vineyard Theatre as needed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

in this case, adding citations to an otherwise nearly source-free article, why do you not join in the constructive work, and add sources?

You do not provide benefit to readers, removing signals that particular items of information are not reliable.

Moreover, you achieve the end of making the ongoing work harder, because temporary inline citation tags serve as markers that allow progress through the article, making constructive changes.

Please respect the in process tag, as I continue work. Then, please, come in and add citations.

A former faculty member, and former registered WP editor, who left WP over this very appearance-over-substance nonsense. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a {{refimprove}} tag, you don't have to bomb the article with 16 additional {{citation needed}} tags. That is called tag-bombing and is disruptive to the reader. I don't see why you need both the orange banner and the inline tags - choose one or the other, but having both is quite redundant if you're going to tag every single unsourced statement as well.

You will also note that, in my subsequent edit, I did add sources. My removal of the tags was a temporary measure while I figured out which tags needed to be resolved and which ones didn't. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Won't waste further time. Next time, consider collegially waiting until the other editor has finished their constructive edits (see preceding). As I won't return, I ask that you please finish completely sourcing the article that you've imperially begun attending. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I already added sources to these statements, but okay. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please finsh the job that you interrupted. I won't be back. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like me to revert my edits so you can restore your own, that's fine - there was a misunderstanding here, and I thought you were tag-bombing the page. But like I said twice, I already added sources to these statements. None of the info in that article is unsourced, and I don't intend on stepping on your toes should you choose to make further edits. Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to "My removal of the tags was a temporary measure...": As was my addition of inline tags (a temporary measure). Bottom line, it was clear I was working to add citations, line by line, and removing tags as I did. The article was not hurt by having temporary tags, it is moreso by being given the temporary appearance of quality by your reversion. And it was, from an AGF perspective, insensitive and disrespectful for you not to wait until the active editing to improve appearance paused. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your

ignoring the ongoing constructive work to interrupt it before it paused (evident via the series of 4 short edit summaries, one-by-one, indicating a placed citation and removal of in inline tag, and a trio more that went to waste because of the interruption);
stating above "while I figured out which tags needed to be resolved and which ones didn't" (with its implication that it was something you had to do, for others engaged could not be trusted to);
an edit summary comparable vis-à-vis attitude regarding the removal of tags from the infobox, as this was an eventual obvious next step once the text sourcing had sufficiently proceeded; and
mostly, your snide edit summary ("does anyone really doubt..."), ignoring the constructive aspects of the editing, and calling attention to the work as if it was unnecessary, even ridiculous,

are the reasons why I will not work alongside you at the article.

My closing question to you is, where was your urgency in February, when you last edited, and left the article as the unsourced morass it was—as I stated in opening edit summary "16 non-sky-is-blue factual assertions, but just 2 independent and 3 total citations, e.g., most of infobox info unsourced, all awards unsourced, most productions unsourced"? 98.206.30.195 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you are trying to attribute bad faith where none exists. I restored your edits once I realized that I was wrong. There were no ulterior implications in my edit summaries. If you are offended, I apologize; there are a lot of bad-faith editors who tag-bomb articles unnecessarily. There are sources in the article now—all of the unsourced content is now sourced.

If you choose not to work alongside me on the article, that's fine, but then there is no point in further belaboring the issue here. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DYK for 181 Montague Street

On 23 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 181 Montague Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the construction of 181 Montague Street in New York City, each of the building's columns was pulled by 14 horses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/181 Montague Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 181 Montague Street), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of King Manor

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King Manor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Morgan Library & Museum

The article Morgan Library & Museum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morgan Library & Museum for comments about the article, and Talk:Morgan Library & Museum/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alan Islas -- Alan Islas (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea, Manhattan

You added some statistics to Chelsea, Manhattan in 2019. Can you explain how you chose those numbers? I see that the racial statistics in the infobox are from [1], which is for "Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flat Iron-Union Square", but the total population of that area is listed as 70,150 and you put 47,325 in the infobox. I'm not familiar with NYC so can you give me some input on what area should be used and what should be listed as the population of Chelsea? It would be especially helpful if we there was something from the 2020 census, but just a source would also be good. Should citydata be used? VirusDontKill (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VirusDontKill, good question. The original source was City-Data, but this source is now blacklisted (see WP:RSPSS), so it's no longer possible to add it to articles.

As to what area we should use, unfortunately that is a bit more nebulous. The city only provides detailed breakdowns for neighborhood tabulation areas and for census tracts, neither of which generally align with neighborhood borders (which themselves may be disputed). For now I would use the 2020 census data for the neighborhood tabulation area (or if that's not available, the 2010 census data). Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can add the 2020 data for "Chelsea-Hudson Yards" neighborhood tabulation area: [2] into the infobox. Or would that be incorrect because the area is too large? VirusDontKill (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch

On 25 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New York City's Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch (pictured) once had a puppet library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Brooklyn

In the article Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch, you added text referring to "symbols of Brooklyn". I looked around, and there isn't much on the topic on Wikipedia or the Internet generally. This article from the Brooklyn Public Library says that "Seventy years ago Mrs. Florence A. Blum lobbied to make Forsythia Brooklyn's official flower," but I don't see that it was accepted. Are there any unofficial or official symbols of Brooklyn? Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive, thanks for pointing this out. I had a look at the sources again; they're not so much referring to symbols of Brooklyn, but rather, the city seal of Brooklyn. I'll fix that now. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan)

On 26 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Guinness World Record holder for the world's largest menorah, in Grand Army Plaza, is smaller than a menorah in Grand Army Plaza? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oliver Gould Jennings House

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oliver Gould Jennings House you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oliver Gould Jennings House

The article Oliver Gould Jennings House you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Oliver Gould Jennings House and Talk:Oliver Gould Jennings House/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oliver Gould Jennings House

The article Oliver Gould Jennings House you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oliver Gould Jennings House for comments about the article, and Talk:Oliver Gould Jennings House/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]