Talk:PATH (rail system)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Exchange Place "Transfer" of operations to H&M?

This has yet to be substantiated. Given that it took fifty years for the PRR to close Exchange Place Terminal (and that, during the 1950s, there were plans to transfer operations of Exchange Place Terminal to the CNJ, albeit briefly), in light of that plus the rather small size that Penn Station in NYC was built to, it seems unlikely.

70.105.206.71 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Predates NYC subway?

Did anyone else notice this? The article says (in the History Section) "... predates the New York City subway system (the IRT)..." but then goes on to say "....The first trains ran in 1907 and revenue service started between Hoboken and 19th Street at midnight on February 26, 1908. On July 19, 1909, service began between Lower Manhattan and Jersey City,..." Both dates are after the opening of the first IRT line in 1904. --69.86.226.30 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A portion of the tunnel does predate the NYC Subway. The article as written was very specific and correct on the subject.

--Allan 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Time to move?

There's been a suggestion from User:Atlant that this page be moved from PATH to Port Authority Trans-Hudson and a disambig page created here. I'm in favor, but would like to seek comments before going ahead. --CComMack 15:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another reasonable title for this page might be PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson). At this point, with three different PATHs in existence, I think we need to make the change, but I have no strong preference on the new title and don't have enough Wiki experience to known which would be better; I'd be happy to "go with the flow".

Atlant 16:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the title PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson), since that is not consistent with how we disambiguate titles on Wikipedia. Moving this to Port Authority Trans-Hudson would be more appropriate. Darkcore 22:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move is done (almost). (Almost == some pages are left to pipe their links, but should be no double-redirects left. If people could help out with those last few, I'd appreciate the help.) Now another question: should the dab page be at PATH, or PATH (disambiguation) with a hard redirect here from PATH? And what of Path (disambiguation)? Basically, this question turns on how likely someone searching for "PATH" is to be looking for the Hudson Tubes as opposed to any other definition of the term. --CComMack 16:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, I changed the hard-redirect at PATH to a dab. I think that's a satisfactory solution ('cause I suspect about as many people will look for Toronto PATH as Port Authority PATH) but if anyone else feels strongly that it should be the other way (PATH (disambiguation)), I probably won't put up a fight. ;)

Atlant 21:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Colors

Are the line colors used in real life, or only on maps? --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The trains have lights on the front, which correspond to the line colors. (Red lights show they are a Newark-WTC train, yellow for JSQ-33rd trains, etc...) Darkcore 04:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Journal Square-33rd Street (via Hoboken)? Does this service use both yellow and green lights? --SPUI (talk) 06:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Darkcore 03:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually the JSQ-33 via Hoboken trains use blue/yellow on the front, indicating a combination of JSQ-33 and HOB-33. The green for HOB-WTC is not used when the combined service is in effect. Mjj237 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following:

The Hudson Tubes were an engineering marvel of the era. It was the first ever transportation system under a major river, pre-dating both those of the New York City subway system and the Pennsylvania Railroad's tunnel into Manhattan.

The IRT subway opened its tunnel under the East River in January 1908, a month before PATH started running. Also, there were surely tunnels outside the U.S. (this 1908 map of the London Underground shows several under the Thames) by then. --SPUI (talk) 15:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but I do think that the tubes are still significant as the first transportation system to cross the Hudson, creating the first physical connection between New Jersey and New York. Maybe we could reword the comment, without removing it completely. Darkcore 20:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this yet, but I do believe that the H&M tunnel was remarkable for the size and depth of the river it crossed. Also, the H&M tube was started much earlier than the IRT tubes, when the state-of-the-art of underriver tunneling was much newer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I think we should reword the comment to reflect that. Darkcore 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement that the tubes were "the first physical connection between New Jersey and New York" is, if not inaccurate, then at least misleading because it might be true of New Jersey as a state and New York as a city, but it is not true of New Jersey as a state and New York as a state too, because on the west side of the Hudson the land along the entire northern border of the state of New Jersey is completely contiguous with that of the state of New York. While I'm here, let me ask something about the opening of the Journal Square/Summit Avenue station. The date given in the article, 4/14/1912, would situate that opening almost a year after the date given for the opening of service from Grove Street to Manhattan Transfer, 10/1/1910 (and Newark too, 11/26/1911). Since Journal Square lies between Grove Street and Manhattan Transfer, that would mean tube trains bypassed a Journal Square stop for all that time. Now, if all this is true, shouldn't the article acknowledge that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.6.67 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can say nothing confirming the opening date of Summit/Journal Square, such a fact would already be apparent in the dates and making a more explicit statement of it would be pedantic. As for the New York/New Jersey connection issue, it seems pretty well clear to me that when used in this article "New York" refers to the city, not the state as a whole, as that is what is referred to in the introduction. Once again, no need to be more specific in the text.oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article

Just to put my two cents in (and annoy the article authors?) this should really be two articles, a current service one under the current title, and a history article under Hudson Tubes, the generic name of the systems pretty much from day one. H&M and PATH are the operators of the Hudson Tubes, the latter term of which is more inclusive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? The system has not changed all that much since inception, except for the fact that it was taken over by the Port Authority in the 60s. Additionally, PATH is the name for the current service (no one, as far as I know, calls it the "Hudson Tubes" anymore); the "operator" is the Port Authority. Darkcore 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for "why", the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad is a fallen flag and has enough detail in its own history to warrant a separate article. The system has changed a great deal since its inception rather than "not all that much", major changes including the WTC station (a Port-Authority-instituted change), the redirection from Newark Park Place station to Newark Penn Station (nothing at all to do with the organization known as PATH), the closing of Manhattan Transfer station (again, nothing to do with the PATH organization), as well as needing greater detail of original H&M rolling stock such as the "black cars" and "white cars", which did not operate as passenger stock under PATH. Using the reasoning that the only "major" change was the ownership would also lead to the kind of reasoning that would lead to a merge of the article about the Pennsylvania Railroad into the Norfolk Southern Railway article.

71.241.74.20 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a big deal to me--just thought it would be more consistent with the way New York City Subway is done, with disambiguation between lines, services, and operators. But that's a much more complicated system. I am going to make Hudson Tubes a redirect to here while I'm thinking about it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense to do this for the NYC subway because the current system is an amalgamation of different services, and the system is, as you say, more complicated, with a number of different actors involved. Although, it might make sense to create different articles for the four different PATH "services," if enough information is available to warrant them. I'm already working on creating articles for the stations. Darkcore 05:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional data added to 9/11 section

I expanded the information on how Exchange Place was used when it was reopened in 2003 prior to the reopening of the WTC station.

When the Port Auhtority said they were going to rebuild the approaches to the station I thought they were going to realign the separate tunnels that the Hoboken line uses but as it turns out they left it as they were. Only the tracks to/from the Newark line were changed.

This resulted in the service as I described on the page. It was slighty confusing to people coming into the station not realizing that the train that came in from Newark was now going to Hoboken or the train from Hoboken was going to Newark. People coming in from Hoboken would cross the platform expecting to board a Newark train (which would have been under normal circumstances) but found out that the train was headed to Hoboken. PATH never made any offical mention of this arrangement except for announcements at the station.

--Allan 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

change of Hudson template

Would anyone mind if I substituted {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} with {{Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I just created the Exchange Place (PATH station) article, also creating an infobox for it. I also placed the infobox on Hoboken Terminal — though not sure if that article should be it (or Hoboken (PATH station))?

Anyway, if you like the infobox, I could add it to the other station articles. And, any suggestions for improving it are welcome. I tried using the same colors as used on this article to designate the lines. Some other way of using the colors or designating the lines might be better, instead. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the Exchange Place article - I'd been meaning to do it but never got around to it. I think there should be separate articles for the Newark and Hoboken PATH stations, instead of folding them in to their respective station articles.

I like the idea of an infobox. Nothing against your infobox, but I really like the one being used on some New York City Subway articles - see 34th Street-Herald Square (IND Sixth Avenue Line station). I like the idea of showing transfers, particularly for the Manhattan stations (which still don't have articles). Darkcore 05:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can add transfers. This infobox is based on the one used for Washington Metro stations (e.g. Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro)). Adding the transfers is definitely a good idea. The tricky thing with PATH are the colors, especially the gold/yellow used for JSQ-33. The lines can be written in the color, but on some background color that works universally well. -Aude (talk | contribs) 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the station articles should just be name as Exchange Place (PATH) rather than Exchange Place (PATH station). -Aude (talk | contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to line up the station names in a row with the train lines as was done with the Washington Metro station example? In the Pavonia/Newport (PATH station) example, Christopher Street causes a line break, creating a slight misalignment. Other than that (and the addition of transfers and maybe some information about platform/station configuration, as in the Washington Metro example), I think it looks good. Of course, the station articles could use more pictures (which I can try to work on from my end). As for Exchange Place (PATH) vs. Exchange Place (PATH station), I'm indifferent - I used the latter nomenclature to be consistent with the naming of New York City Subway station articles. Darkcore 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I tried separate templates Template:PATH infobox2 for stations that have two lines,and Template:PATH infobox for stations with just one line. I'm still figuring out how to make good infoboxes, so not yet sure if there's a easy way to make one that work well for different number of lines. Also, I'm not sure the best way to add the transfers. Mainly the transfers are to New York City Subway and only apply to some stations. Though Journal Sq. and Pavonia/Newport can be considered transfer stations too. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We could also add transfers to Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, New Jersey Transit, Newark City Subway, New York Waterway, and possibly Amtrak. I'll keep thinking of a good way to design and implement it in the template. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we add the after-hours service to the template also? I know it's basically the JSQ-33 train with an extra stop at Hoboken, but it's still considered a distinct service by PATH. Darkcore 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, after-hours service is a good idea. Though, I'm not yet sure how to incorporate it. Maybe have two boxes for lines/stations (one regular service) and one for after-hours (with a note on when after-hours are)? After-hours also means that HOB-WTC doesn't run and requires a transfer at Grove Street (PATH station). -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm worried the box could get a little unwieldy with all that information. Maybe we could list the service the same way as the others are currently listed, with a little footnote that would link to the "Service" section of the main PATH article? Darkcore 20:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any precedent for after-hours service, on other . Maybe a footnote would work well. I tried it on Exchange Place (PATH), though I think the formatting could be improved. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea of having to put that footnote in every PATH article. Could we link the footnote to the main PATH article's service section, which already describes the after-hours service? Either that or we could create individual articles on the different services (JSQ-33 (PATH), NWK-WTC (PATH), JSQ-33 via HOB (PATH) etc.), and then have the services in the infobox link to the articles. That way, we don't need to use a footnote. Darkcore 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

After-hours service

You make good suggestions about the footnotes. I don't like them either. I have tried the first idea (not exactly sure what you had in mind), I just added a small footnote in the infobox that links to Port Authority Trans-Hudson#Service, but don't quite like it either. I probably favor your second idea, having articles for each line. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think the creation of articles for each line is probably the best solution. I can start working on that. Another question about the infobox: could you maybe represent the line color in the same way as it's represented in the Washington Metro template (by placing the color on the sides of the cell instead of making the text the line color)? It's a little hard to read with the grey background. As I create the line articles, I'm probably going to remove the colored text because I'm starting to realize that it's hard to read. Darkcore 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can work on implementing the colors like on Washington Metro. That should make the text easier to read. Anyway, if the lines are to become links, the links shouldn't be colored. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another possible solution for after hours are the maps, customized to highlight each station (easy to do). I've done that for Exchange Place (PATH), though now there are too many images in relation to text. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of map locators. I just created Journal Square-33rd Street (PATH service). Darkcore 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The service article looks nice. I like the idea of including accessibility. The station infoboxes could also include that info. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Updated infobox

I've updated the infobox (see Pavonia/Newport (PATH station)) with new color coding, similar to how it's done with the Washington Metro station infobox - Metro Center (Washington Metro). Let me know any feedback on the color coding or general improvements to the infobox, before it's put on all the station articles. Thanks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks great - good work. Would it be possible to list the JSQ-33 via HOB as the third service for the affected stations? (e.g., making a new row below HOB-WTC in the Pavonia/Newport (PATH station) infobox for the JSQ-33 via HOB service) Darkcore 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried adding another table for "late night service" — I think this term works better than "after hours". Anyway, it's implemented on Exchange Place (PATH station). Let me know if you think this is too much, or what, before the other stations are changed to this format. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've converted the other station infoboxes to include late-night service. Otherwise, the template was messed-up and looked bad. If we want to revert or modify the infoboxes further, we can of course do that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Can you make the one colour yellow and the other one blue (since the line is represented by two colours)? Thanks for working on this! Darkcore 07:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I intend to get JSQ-33 via HOB with the alternating blue/yellow. I'm not sure of an easy way to do it, but will figure it out. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications on Caissons & FRA supervision

I don't know how particular and precise you want this to be, so I haven't made any edits on this.

Your "Image:PATH_junction.jpg" has the note "A drawing of the northern of the two underground junctions on the New Jersey side. The two western tracks at the bottom were never built." This isn't correct. Each point on this triangular arrangement of tunnels is referred to (at least internally) as a "Caisson". Caisson 1 is closest to the river, Caisson 2 is closest to Hoboken, and Caisson 3 is the southernmost - closest to the Pavonia/Newport station. The actual tunnels in use are 'stacked', one above the other - so one tunnel is on the bottom, and one is above. This can be particularly demonstrated at Caisson 1 where there is a single emergency exit stair / vent shaft ; and at Caisson 3 (where the holiday tree is), there is a ladder that connects the two tunnels vertically to allow for maintenance people to move between them.

You already cite Joseph Brennan under abandoned stations. He has also written about tunnel construction. This particular chapter refers to the caissons and the layout of the tunnels: http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beach/chapter22.html

Another excellent source for information and illustrations which should be mentioned somewhere is Mr. T. Kennedy's collection. On his website, http://www.tmk.com/ , he has several books from the early days of the H&M rail construction. There are dozens (hundreds?) of photos and illustrations, and a lot of information that Mr. Kennedy keeps in a private collection.

Further, your quote "PATH continues to be subject to FRA regulations since the line has a connection to the Amtrak mainline near Harrison station." may not be entirely true. That rail connection has been removed (several years), and the FRA has not relented in granting PATH a waiver from FRA supervision. The FRA has not really made its requirements clear and explicit, so the shared connection alone is not a definitive requirement on its own. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Federal Railroad Administration., No. 97-1103 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 15, 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 (1998).

JoiseyBill 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)JoiseyBill

Newark Airport Extension

"Recently, the Port Authority has allocated funds to conduct a feasibility study of extending PATH two miles (3.2 km) south of Newark Penn Station to Newark Liberty International Airport. If the project is deemed to be possible from an engineering, operational, and financial standpoint, the Port Authority would include funding for the project in its Capital Plan. The extension to Newark Airport is estimated to cost $500 million. Extensions of PATH to Newark Airport and Plainfield, New Jersey have been on the drawing board for years, but there has been no movement on either project."

is that section valid? I thought that the Newark Airport extension proposal became moot when AirTran was built. Also, how seriously has a Plainfield extension been considered? 69.141.122.171 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The AirTrain connects the airport terminal to the Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station), which is separate from the Pennsylvania Station (Newark), where PATH currently goes and the lines end. With, the airport extension, the PATH lines would end at Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station), instead of Pennsylvania Station (Newark). And I don't know about Plainfield. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Plainfield extension was being considered in the late 1970s-1980s, but it's highly unlikely that would ever happen now. As for the Newark Airport extension, the PA allocated about $30 million to study the feasibility of extending the PATH to the NJT station where it would link up with the AirTrain service there. Last year, the PA board approved the allocation of about $550 million for the extension, which is expected to be complete by 2015. This is all to say that, yes, that section is valid, and probably needs to be updated. Darkcore 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PATH - FRA

The statement above, AMTRAK connections removed, is inaccurate. Yes a crossover was removed but PATH still has two major links to AMTRAK. The first is the Dock bridge, a lift bridge owned and operated by AMTRAK the second is a crossover on PATHs eastbound mainline just east of the Harrison car shop which is used to deliver equipment and supplies to the PATH Maintenance Shop, and remove equipment as well. The Home Signals on Dock Bridge, the Crossing at Harrison, and the interchange inside Harrison Shop are all interlocked with and operated by AMTRAK's Operations Center in Manhattan. In addition, there is another reason why the FRA is involved with PATH. PATH operates Interstate, and thus is regulated by the FRA even though it only does minimal interchange with AMTRAK. In this case, its status is similar to that of PATCO between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lindenwold, New Jersey.-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Category for renaming

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PATH Fare information

I noticed the the 'citation needed' in a couple of spots in the fare information section. The problem is that the information came from PATH newsletters from 2005 which are no longer available online.

http://www.pathrail.com/CommutingTravel/path/html/newsletter.html

I am open to recommendations on how to better cite a source in this case.

--Allan 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PATH fare information is sourced and can be found on the PA website here. Darkcore 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SmartLink info update

In the November edition of "Pathways" PATH announced that they "expect that the mailing of Senior SmartLink Cards will soon begin to all of the current PATH Senior Fare Card holders". So much for the August date they kept talking about.

The 1st q 2007 information was also taken from the newsletter.

http://www.pathrail.com/CommutingTravel/path/pdfs/Oct-NovPATHWays_v3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRT1904 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-trucks

Good to know semi-trucks are "not currently" allowed in the PATH tubes. As opposed to when there used to be a lot of truck traffic in these rail tunnels? I'm fixing that line, I hope nobody minds.Mjj237 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When was there truck traffic in the PATH rail tunnels?

I hope you aren't confusing the use of the old H & M station (Hudson Terminal) and a portion of the lead tunnel was used as a data storage site. --Allan 16:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good MORNING/AFTERNOON/EVENING (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on {{subst:CURRENTDATE}} in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

Well-written: Failed
Factually accurate: Failed The article has a number of unsourced statement, and is actually listed in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Of particular questionable accuracy is the #After September 11^th section and its subsections.
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Excellent An excellent array of images is included in the article, making it interesting and easy to read.

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review or discuss my decision at my talk page if you believe I have been misguided.

Sincerest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AAR Reporting Marks?

Are there any AAR reporting marks for the PATH? I believe it's likely because the system shares track with other railroads. CoolGuy 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Appendix A of the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports, the "railroad code" (reporting mark) is PATH. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't all reporting marks, and it doesn't share any track. Back when it was the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad, it did, and had reporting mark HDM. --NE2 23:52, 31 December 2008 (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.

The result of the proposal was No Move. Hús ö nd 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Port Authority Trans-Hudson → PATH (rapid transit) — Port Authority Trans-Hudson is the system's official name, but it is commonly referred to as simply "PATH," especially by its owner, PANYNJ.[1] The system's logo also simply reads "PATH" and should be moved as per WP:COMMONNAME, similar to how Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority was moved to SEPTA, and how Port Authority Transit Corporation was moved to PATCO Speedline. —–Dream out loud (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If renamed, rename to PATH (NY-NJ). This seems to be a name more people would relate to. Vegaswikian 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would also be acceptable, although we'd need redirects from the variants of hyphen. Unfortunately, PATH is ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that abbreviations would be acceptable in the title. For example, in terms of Interstate Highways, highways in multiple states follow a format similar to Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey), as opposed to Interstate 295 (DE-NJ). Also, the state should be in alphabetical order and should use an endash (–) instead of a hyphen (-), which would look like PATH (New Jersey–New York), if we decided to go with that approach. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as pointless, because the user can't enter PATH in the search box and be taken to this article. Moves should be made only if it improves the user experience somehow, and this proposal doesn't do that. If the move is made, PATH (rapid transit) is the best of the proposals. There are no other rapid-transit systems called PATH, nor are there likely to be. If the names of the states are used, I see no problem with "NY–NJ" (separated by an en-dash), as PATH is a service of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. People are accustomed to seeing the states listed in that order. The fact is that none of these proposed names are likely to be entered by a user in a search box, unless s/he already knows the article name. Marc Shepherd 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as pointless. All proposed names except PATH are clumsy, and that one is properly a disambiguator. No distinction between PATH and Path should be relied upon for finding the article, since even when search engines recognize such distinctions, readers don't. Port Authority Trans-Hudson is official, which isn't always good enough but is proper here. Jim.henderson 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as stated above, over and over again. Anything other than plain old "PATH" sounds, for lack of a better word, dumb. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose We always called it the PATH train, never the PATH rapid transit. Ewlyahoocom 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose No necessary. PATH (rapid transit) is rather ambiguous, however I would support a move to Port Authority Trans-Hudson (rapid transit). Acps110 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't have a really strong opinion about the proposed move, but you all should probably take a look at the section on this talk page above entitled "Time to move?" This article was originally at PATH and was moved in January of 2005.

On the subect of disambiguation problems, I believe that the Wiki can differentiate between Path and PATH. --Jfruh (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki can differentiate the two, but "PATH" can also refer to PATH (Toronto) (an underground pedestrian tunnel network) and PATH (Atlanta) (a trail-building organization). –Dream out loud (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the comments by Marc Shepherd above, I was wondering what is the primary use of PATH. I think that a strong case could be made for Port Authority Trans-Hudson renamed to PATH being the primary use. So add a hat note and we could be OK. Is this a proposal where consensus can be formed? Vegaswikian 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that every time "PATH" is linked in another article, is it almost always inside a piped link (ex: [[Port Authority Trans-Hudson|PATH]]). Since that is the case, the article should be renamed as per WP:COMMONNAME and disambiguated with parentheses in the title, such as (NY-NJ), (rapid transit), etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So this is the primary use of PATH and it does not need to disambiguated. Vegaswikian 07:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently the biggest single use of PATH, and the only important use in New York, but it's a big world, and a worldwide encyclopedia needs PATH to be a disambiguator, seems to me. The current name of the article is the least bad one we can get. Second choice, for me, would be Hudson Tubes, but that's a distant second. Jim.henderson 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The current name may be only know to rail geeks, so it is not a good choice. Hudson Tubes is also not a good choice that that implies only a small portion of the entire line. Since this is clearly the primary use for PATH that should be the location for this article. Vegaswikian 20:27, 3 November 2007 (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.

Requested move to PATH

There was no consensus in favour of the move. If I may suggest, any future discussions may wish to consider what the common practice is with other acronyms that are also common words. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Port Authority Trans-Hudson → PATH — This is the primary use of PATH so it can be moved over the redirect with a top link added to the dab page. The previous discussion indicates that there may be support for this move. —Vegaswikian 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Provisional support. If this is indeed the predominant use of PATH, then I would support the move. I don't know how the nominator concluded that this was the case, or if he is merely assuming it. Marc Shepherd 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- PATH is the major transit system connecting New York City and New Jersey. Daily usage is well over 225,000 passengers. It interconnects with major transit systems in both states. A Google with 'PATH "port authority"' has 440,000 hits. Vegaswikian 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, you've demonstrated that when you limit PATH to a NY/NJ context, this is the dominant usage. But Wikipedia isn't a NY/NJ website. Here are a few other statistics:

PATH (NY/NJ) has 225,000 daily users, while PATH (Toronto) has 100,000 daily users[2].
Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson contains 21 articles, while Category:PATH (Toronto) contains 32 articles.

Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson does not include buildings accessible from its terminals. If it did, the number of entries would be higher. But I don't believe adding buildings is something we want to do. Vegaswikian 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The only other PATH (all caps) in Wikipedia is PATH (Atlanta), which is a stub article. The only competitor, in terms of dominant usage, is PATH (Toronto), but usage is within a similar order of magnitude. Marc Shepherd 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Support I would prefer this to the present title, but a dab would also be acceptable; some of opposition to parenthetical dabbing above does not seem to get that the dab is no part of the name, but is Wikipedia's invention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support common name is the abbreviation. Yahel Guhan 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Port Authority Trans-Hudson is only the primary usage of PATH if one lives in New York City and the surrounding areas. If one lives in Toronto then the primary usage is PATH (Toronto). If one lives elsewhere, it's probably Trail. Let's leave Path as the disambiguation page, since the term means many different things to different people. Noel S McFerran 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - This article was moved from PATH in January 2005 and that was the correct decision. I love our little Hudson railroad and use it for about a tenth of my rail travel, and it's our only PATH but not the world's. Jim.henderson 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Port Authority Trans-Hudson is only the primary usage of PATH?? No, it is not if we look from the global perspective. Chris! _ct 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Trivia...

... the following does not sound trivial at all:

PATH is one of the few transit systems which continue to rely on air-operated switch machines and trip stops throughout its entire system. PATH has found their performance and reliability to be superior in the wet environment of their tunnels and low-lying surface trackage.

However, there is no source for it. I've removed it till we can get a source. Can someone provide one? If so, can they please incorporate it into the main article and NOT into a trivia section (given that's it not trivia). - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace service map with track map

never-built Astor Place spur

Uptown & Downtown Hudson Tubes

NY

NJ

Hoboken Terminal

Waldo Yard

over Hackensack River

Manhattan Transfer

Harrison Car Maintenance Facility

Harrison

Centre Street│Dock Bridges

over Passaic River

Park Place

Newark Penn Station

Newark Airport (planned)

Instead of using the rail line images to make a confusing service map, I was thinking we could replace it with this version and use it at the top of the page. It displays all stations, past and present, and their accessibility status. j.reed (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Note: The Newport station is using an incorrect icon because one does not exist with the dotted line in a horizontal fashion. I will try to get someone to make one. j.reed (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Fixed with an image I made. j.reed (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better than the VERY confusing existing map! Acps110 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

H&M tube dismantled

Spotted this on my feed reader today:

Another Ghost From Ground Zero’s Past Fades Away (New York Times, October 26)

Slambo (Speak) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Name issue (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though it is already a redirect, I was thinking that maybe we should move this article to PATH Train per WP:COMMONNAME. The thought struck me when I realized that this article doesn't even appear on the first page of a Google search for "path train", which is what it is most commonly called by local media and riders.

I understand from reading the above discussions on this that calling it simply PATH (which is also commonly used) would pose problems, but using the full, spelled-out name instead of the acronym seems a clunky solution, especially since it is rarely used. Indeed, most users of the system probably don't even know what the acronym stands for. Few are ever going to search for the full name, which, to my understanding of it, means it fails WP:COMMONNAME.

Just wanted to throw that out there and see what sticks. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - This is an encyclopedia, therefore the article is named the official name of the system. A redirect from PATH is helpful, but the article does NOT need to moved there. This is similar to if someone moved New York City Subway to NYCS. :-( Acps110 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Official name is not wikipolicy, common name is. And "PATH" or "PATH Train" is what people call it more often than not.oknazevad (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. If a reader wants to access this article and has no idea about the Port Authority Trans-Hudson name, they will first go to the disambiguation page under PATH and find the link to this article there. If you find common search terms for this article, that's what redirects are for. The name "PATH Train" for the article sounds unconventional and too informal, to me at least. Plus, I feel there is little desire elsewhere to use acronyms as the article name for a rapid transit system. (Prove me wrong, if you can.) I saw SEPTA was moved only because one user responded in favor to the requested move. Other systems in the U.S. have not done the same. BART, LACMTA, MARTA, MBTA and WMATA come to mind. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While not necessarily the best measure, Google produces 211,000 hits for "path train" and only about 30,000 for "port authoriy trans-hudson". And while it may sound informal, it is certainly the more commonly used name for the system. Heck, it's what the traffic reports on CBS2 uses every morning. So that's why I believe, per WP:COMMONNAME we should move it. It's the same as it was with SEPTA. The full name is rarely used, and most daily users of the system likely don't even know the full name.

Also, I think it must be mentioned that a redirect, which currently exists is great if one is using the search box here at wikipedia, but there are a good many people who just search via a regular Google search, who wouldn't get this page for their search. Wikipedia should be accessable to the average netizen who is just trying to find info in general. Overly detailed or formal titles reduce the usablity of the encyclopedia, which, IMO, misses the spirit or accessability that the encyclopedia is based on.oknazevad (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I barely know a little about listings of search results on Google or search engines in general. Generally, listings are ordered by popularity. It's the search engines' algorithms/methodology/et al. that determines placement of results. So I am skeptical that changing the name of this article will, in turn, necessarily increase the popularity of this article on those search engines. You may try to go to the village pump and ask a question as to how this particular article could appear higher in search engine results, which I also think it should. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just googled "path trains" (plural) and this article came up #3. Station1 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Common name. I never had any idea that Path (PATH) was an acronym, but that is all I have ever heard it called. But the T does not need to be capitalized, so it should be called PATH train. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Tinlinkin. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The subject is the transit system as a entity, not PATH trains themselves. PATH might be a viable option, but I'd rather not re-open that discussion. If consensus does emerge for a move, it should be to PATH train rather than PATH Train. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi support It should be PATH Train (NY-NJ) instead. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Putting something in parenthesis is only done to disambiguate from something else named PATH Train, not to specify what it is. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues with Station-layout tables in PATH articles

Interested parties, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template:Rail text color and comment there about the colored links being used in the "Station layout" tables in articles about PATH stations. - dcljr (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Citations had been requested for the below material since 2008. Feel free to re-add this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hudson and Manhattan Railroad years

The original plan included an agreement between H&M and the Pennsylvania Railroad whereby PRR traffic headed for Lower Manhattan transferred at Manhattan Transfer to the Hudson Tubes, and H&M would operate all traffic—ferry, train, or tube—between Lower Manhattan and Newark. The Tubes would take over operation of the Jersey City Pennsylvania Railroad Harborside Terminal station at Exchange Place, when the new Pennsylvania Station in midtown Manhattan were to open, which would have its own tunnel under the Hudson River. Penn Station in Manhattan did open some ten years later, but the plans had changed; the PRR maintained operation of its Jersey City Station and it also maintained its ferries between Exchange Place and Lower Manhattan. Additionally, the route between Journal Square (then Summit Avenue) and Newark became a joint operation of the H&M and PRR.

I believe this map is clear enough confirmation. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 09 October 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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.

By my reading of this discussion, there are five editors firmly in the camp of moving the page: Tinlinkin, Yaksar, Djflem, BMK, and oknazevad; a sixth is an IP claiming to be a logged-out regular editor also evinced support. A seventh, George Ho offered weak support. Epicgenius intially opposed but clarified that this was "only because a better disambiguator may need to be selected". This leaves three editors firmly in opposition, DanTD, Roadrunner3000, and BarrelProof.

The discussion basically pits WP:COMMONNAME against WP:NATURALDIS, with copious reference to other articles having either abbreviated or spelled-out names. Further discussion between supporters evinces a desire to move to some abbreviated title, but disagreement over the disambiguator to be used. It does appear, however, that PATH (rail system) is the least objected-to variation. Based on the foregoing, I find that consensus supports moving the page, and that PATH (rail system) is the closest thing to a consensus move target. Therefore, moved, per consensus. bd2412 T 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Port Authority Trans-Hudson → PATH (rapid transit) – The WP:COMMONNAME of the system is PATH, and as per Wikipedia policy, this should be the title of this article. The official website prominently displays “PATH” much more than its official name, and the same is true when people enter and use the system itself. “Port Authority Trans-Hudson” is found on the exterior of rolling stock, but rarely anywhere else in the system from my experience. Popular/media usage also tends to favor the acronym. As I do not believe this article is the (worldwide) primary usage of either PATH or Path, and I decline to argue that it is, I am proposing to use the disambiguator above as the most likely to follow conventions of other Wikipedia articles. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Tinlinkin (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been four prior discussions to move the article: January 2005, November 2007 (1), November 2007 (2), and November 2009. I would like to take the time to respond to some previous concerns. First, some of the comments showed a misunderstanding of when and how disambiguators should be used in article titles. I do not intend to point fingers on any of those editors, but those rationales seem to be out of touch compared to common rationales in 2014. Second, some users prefer the title to be PATH Train. I oppose this because the PATH system is commonly referred to without the added word “train.” And PATH (train) would also not work because “train” as a disambiguator is ambiguous. (Would it be “train” as a transit system or “train” as a named train like City of New Orleans (train)?) The best disambiguator here, IMO, is (rapid transit) because the article discusses a rapid transit system as a whole. PATH (NY-NJ) has been suggested, but since most other entries in PATH are not transit systems or locations, I’m not convinced of this approach. Finally, as a criticism of my own opposition to a page move (in the 2009 discussion!), I have been reading how the WP:RMs have played out over the years and I now fully embrace the “common name” policy. I also think fears about the indexing (rank in search results) of this article if the page is moved are overblown. Sometimes I can’t believe how my viewpoints have turned 180 degrees over the years! I have to thank User:Dream out loud for providing the identical suggestion as mine in 2007. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – "Port Authority Trans-Hudson" is the official name, which is also as commonly used as "PATH" is. Moving it to PATH (rapid transit) will be confusing, and wrong to boot. That's why New Jersey Transit is not named NJT, Long Island Rail Road is not named LIRR, etc. (the abbreviations redirect to the articles). Though, on the contrary, a redirect from PATH (rapid transit) to this article would also help. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Both New Jersey Transit and Long Island Rail Road are branded and marketed (in-house and in the media) under their full names (although New Jersey Transit has a preference for "NJ Transit" on its website). I can't recall the last time I heard "Port Authority Trans-Hudson" outside of rail enthusiasts and it is not a name in regular usage amongst the system's users, although it may well have been previously. That system's website and Twitter account [3], as examples, bear that out. To address confusion over the styling of PATH (rapid transit), Wikipedia convention states that article titles use WP:COMMONNAME, "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources," and that is PATH. The (rapid transit) disambiguator defines the subject of the article. I've already said that I would oppose moving this article to simply PATH because this is not the primary topic of any generalized mention of "PATH", hence the disambiguator. If there are any better alternatives to my suggested disambiguator, I'm open to them. Tinlinkin (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  - I would also like to say that the lead paragraph that currently begins: "Port Authority Trans-Hudson, commonly abbreviated as PATH, is a rapid transit railroad serving..." does not need to be changed, regardless of what the article title is. Tinlinkin (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  - That makes sense. The disambiguator is open for discussion, though. Can that be discussed first? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    - Isn't that where we are now? Tinlinkin (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      - We are discussing whether to even move the page. We haven't gotten to discussing the parenthetical disambiguator yet. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
        So do you support moving the page now or not? It seems like you were against a move because if the page is moved, something about the subject will either become incorrect or it will appear that a neologism is used to name the article. I disagree with either aspect, as I thought I discussed through my discussion. What am I missing or is there something else that I need to demonstrate? Tinlinkin (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
        I am still opposing, but only because a better disambiguator may need to be selected. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Would prefer PATH Train as a more natural disambiguator than a parenthetical. oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue with that title is that in many contexts it is discussed as just PATH alone, such as "Do you prefer Metro North or PATH? or "the governor suggested a major overhaul of the PATH system. It also makes it clear that it's not simply one type of train or just one train route rather than a whole transit network if we have a different disambiguator than just PATH.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, per Epicgenius, however I have no problem with redirecting PATH (rapid transit) and PATH (NY-NJ) to Port Authority Trans-Hudson. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Procedural comment. I have been asked to reopen and relist this discussion, which I originally closed as "no consensus," by a previously uninvolved editor who thinks consensus could still be reached in this discussion. Therefore, I have relisted the move request. Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support Sorry for the trouble with the delay, but I was looking through this and found the oppose argument used so unexpected that I just had to respond. The claim that "Port Authority Trans-Hudson" is just as commonly used as PATH is completely ludicrous in this case. At a purely anecdotal and meaningless level, I have lived in NY all my life and have never heard the train called anything but PATH. But it can be proved in far less personal ways. The main page of the official site for the service does not mention "Port Authority Trans-Hudson", but refers to path about 20 or so times. Official press releases use PATH, and in the cases outside of meeting minutes and such where the full name is used for the public, it is generally in the context of "The PATH system (which stands for Port Authority Trans-Hudson) ". The New Jersey Star-Ledger and the New York Times, arguably the papers of record for the two states, both use PATH rather than the current title (for the NY Times this is in both printed as well as online only articles) (example for Star Ledger).

Looking through incoming links, it also seems, although I'm not going to argue that this alone would ever be a reason to declare a common name, that PATH is the term used by the editors of the related articles (outside of those that just contain the general template).

Additionally, the points about New Jersey Transit and the LIRR do not really apply here since, unlike PATH, both the abbreviations and the full names are used fairly equally in both official and general contexts. A better equivalent is perhaps SEPTA, which is an obvious common name compared to Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or PATCO Speedline, rather than the uncommon term Port Authority Transit Corporation Speedline.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment - Four years ago, there was a discussion on the renaming of some Dallas Area Rapid Transit-related categories. I originally considered voting against the proposal citing the notion that Dallas-Fort Worth area residents and railfans might be more familiar with the acronym, and thought about using PATH as an example. I went along with the rest of the editors in this discussion because the one who suggested the renaming had a valid point. In the meantime, with the proposed renaming of this article, I'm also reminded of a line from the 2004 teen movie The Perfect Score, in which two of the main characters played by Chris Evans and Bryan Greenberg discuss the acronym for Scholastic Aptitude Test, and how it was narrowed down to simply "SAT.". I was debating whether or not I should post the lines from that movie to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, when I was writing this message. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DanTD, I'm not sure I totally understand what you're pointing out here. The rationale in the Dallas nomination was that the category titles of DART rail were too ambiguous since there were other notable DART rail systems, and that the category should match the name of the parent article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of those reasons seem to be the case here, given that there are no other PATH rapid transit systems and that in this case the parent article is the very page being discussed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a general disambiguation issue here, along with the use of proper names. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DanTD, I'm still not sure I see the relevance of the Dallas situation. No one here is saying this should be moved to PATH alone - regardless of what happens, there won't be any ambiguity between this and other articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you also notice the issue of using the proper name? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DanTD, I'm not sure why it is an "issue". We generally follow the guideline of using the most WP:COMMONNAME, not the proper one (thus Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton), FIFA and not Fédération Internationale de Football Association, NATO and not "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", UNICEF, etc. There's really every indication that PATH is overwhelmingly the commonly used name here, as I tried to show above. In the Dallas discussion you linked to you stated that you would have initially supported using the acronym but the arguments about the other DART rail systems convinced you otherwise. Given that there aren't other PATH rail systems in this case, I'm not sure why using the overwhelmingly common name that reliable sources, official sources, and the general public call the system would raise those issues. Perhaps I'm missing something.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@DanTD, if Dallas-area residents recognize DART more than Dallas Area Rapid Transit, in light of the other transit systems that are named DART, I would interpret the disambiguation policy to name that article DART (Dallas rapid transit) because the article title should be “DART” and (Dallas rapid transit) carries out the disambiguation: the type of entity plus location. But since letters in the acronym DART contain the words “Rapid Transit”, only the pedantic would find the (suggested) policy-driven name better. As both you and I know, ‘’PATH'’ is recognized more readily than ‘’Port Authority Trans-Hudson’’, but the name ‘’PATH'’ alone does not have the convenience of encapsulating the physical thing that it stands for: a train system. How to describe the disambiguation is still an issue open to discussion.

To your other point, If I myself had ever supported using the proper name before, I would abandon that support now. Wikipedia caters to all people, and one of the ways it promotes its accessibility is to make the titles of articles readily recognizable to its readers. There are certainly instances where proper names are acceptable because they are popularly used. But the subject of this article is not one of them, because most people who are introduced to this system — whether finding out about it anecdotally or going to the stations — do not see “Port Authority Trans-Hudson” as the first thing they encounter, and they will likely not use the full name either in normal parlance. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support Common name by far in print/electronic media and speech/parlance. Like SEPTA Djflem (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. SEPTA doesn't have a disambiguation to its name. Also the trains still have the words, "Port Authority Trans-Hudson" , underneath the PATH logo. In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA, has steadidly been downgrading its full name from its literature since circa 2010/2011. Even before then, how many times do you hear one verbally mention "Metropolitan Transportation Authority"? none generally. Roadrunner3000 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

When does anyone ever, verbally call PATH by it's long drawn out name? Never, generally.Djflem (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, PATH stands for other things, too. Other stuff exists. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but no one is suggesting that this article should be at just PATH without any disambiguation. Natural disambiguation is great, but when it is the overwhelmingly uncommon (and sometimes even unidentifiable name) parenthetical disambiguation is certainly better.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But here's the thing: The article can also be called PATH (subway), PATH (New York and New Jersey), and PATH (PANYNJ) (okay, the last one is so-so, but these are possibilities). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you're not wrong there. I don't disagree that there are also other potentially better titles. That being said, the existence of other alternatives should not mean that we avoid any type of improvement. In the same vein, Mercury (element) could just as accurately be called Mercury (metal) or Mercury (substance) or even Mercury (quicksilver). But the common name is nevertheless preferable especially in a case like this when many people who know the subject won't even recognize the less common name. I personally would not be a fan of the NY NJ or PANYNJ options you proposed because a good parenthetical disambiguation should try to capture the most significant aspect of the subject, which in this case is being a transit network. Are there other perfectly good options, like (Transit network) or (train network) and so on? Sure. But the existence of those shouldn't keep us from at least preferring a better one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Basically, an ideal article title with disambiguation should be one where a user who knows of the subject can say "Ok, this is the right article" (and not, "hmm wait, is this article the same as the topic most people know as just PATH?") while still conveying what it is to users who might not know the subject what it is if possible ("what is this PATH? oh it's a rapid transit network). Similar to why we might have a Senator disambiguated with (American politician) even when just (American) or (Alaskan) might also be correct.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yaksar: I see your point. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Epicgenius. Any chance you might consider supporting the move then?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to think about it. It's probable, but... – Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support No one calls it anything but PATH. The name it has right now is confusing and most people won't even recognize it for what it is from the title. This is not like metro north or LIRR WHERE we all know what the letters stand for. No one ever uses or can recognize this long name.--107.77.76.115 (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to log in is there anyway I can fix that without people knowing my personal details?--107.77.76.115 (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Log in, replace the sigs, and ask an admin to redact all the edits with your IP. Otherwise, {{spa}} may be added for your having only 2 edits to other pages. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

PANYNJ websites The PANYNJ which operates the system, refers to it as PATH in their websites:

http://www.panynj.gov/path/

http://www.paalerts.com/recent_pathalerts.aspx Djflem (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment See Natural disambiguation under Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation, which also permits existing official names "albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names".Roadrunner3000 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Roadrunner3000, I think the issue here though, is that the full name isn't just not as common, but rather completely blown out of the water by the far more commonly used name. I know you brought up the issue of the MTA, but a big difference there is that if you ask a New Yorker or anyone that knows what the MTA is about the Metropolitan Transit Authority they will know exactly what you're talking about. Talk to someone who knows about PATH, possibly even some people who use it sometimes, about the Port Authority Trans-Hudson and you'll get a lot of confused looks, and probably a bunch of people who assume you might be talking about the PANYNJ in general or something. I assume that you're just including the second part for context, and that you're not trying to say that PATH is a neologism or made up name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Roadrunner3000, are you saying that since the subject of this article has to be disambiguated in Wikipedia, you think that whatever parenthetical is added to PATH will give the article a made-up name? This is exactly the problem that I said before: in instances that parentheticals have to be used to disambiguate article titles, most of the time they are not actually part of the article name, therefore the title is not a neologism. If (rapid transit) is not your cup of tea, I can accept that. But to default to the current name is like saying "this should be done, but it cannot because I don't like the choices or the final result, therefore the status quo should remain." The status quo would still be unsatisfying. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I don’t see anybody arguing against the contention that this system is called PATH significantly more times than Port Authority Trans-Hudson. So I believe there is consensus that "PATH", ignoring any disambiguation issues, should be the title. I have stated how I would prefer to disambiguate the article, others disagree and that’s fine. I’m going to ask for assistance from the members of WP:TRAINS for their input. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the article name should not use the exceedingly rare full version of the acronym, as it does not meet the needed level of recognizability. But "rapid transit" strikes me as a little too jargon-y for a good parenthetical disambiguator (it's a rare term outside of railfan and civic planner circles). I think we'd be better off with a more common, but no less accurate term like "train", "rail system" or even just "rail". Thinking on it, "rail system" seems best, as "train" implies its a single train, not a system, while "rail" by itself implies that it's a definition of a technical term, not the name of a particular system. So I endorse PATH (rail system) as the title. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly be fine with either the current proposal or with (rail system) -- either is better than the current title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I personally don't find "rapid transit" jargon-y, but OTOH I have a bias. The title and subject of the article rapid transit is recognizable enough, and I would say, even to a U.S. audience. I'm still sticking to (rapid transit), but PATH (rail system) is OK. Inevitably somebody will come up and point out why PATH on its face seems to run like a subway but is classified as a railroad (as PATH tracks run beside NJ Transit tracks toward the Newark area), so your suggestion may be better. Tinlinkin (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tinlinkin: You should probably ping WP:NYC and WP:NJ, too. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Epicgenius. It has been done. Tinlinkin (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support a move to PATH (rapid transit) or PATH (mass transit) or PATH (transit system). Whichever disambiguator is chosen, PATH is clearly the correct WP:COMMONNAME and the article should not remain where it currently is, as the full name is really only known to transit buffs. BMK (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
So, from what I can tell, it seems we have a good consensus to move the article to PATH with a disambiguation, but it is still unclear what should be in the parentheses. Am I correct that (rapid transit) and (rail system) seem to be the most supported options?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. We need to discuss that before moving the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  - Alright, so I wouldn't oppose either, both are obviously an improvement to the current title. I'd probably slightly prefer rapid transit, since it is more exact about what this is (Rapid transit is "high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas" and clearly distinguishes the subject from Light rail and Freight rail).--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Weak support - An average non-US reader would type neither "PATH (rapid transit)" nor the current title. An average reader would type in just "PATH" and then click a link to this article. I don't like the fact that no one would type in the whole title, and I would pick "oppose" if not for that. I would rather choose PATH (New York), but which non-US readers know "New York" nowadays? We got PATH (Toronto), but I wonder if non-US and non-Canadian readers know "Toronto". --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's mostly in NJ, so it would be PATH (New Jersey–New York) if you want to put it that way. However, we can disambiguate better if we said that this is a train system (i.e. rapid transit, subway, or metro system) in the disambiguator. So, PATH (metro system) would be better. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: I see nothing wrong with the current title, which has natural disambiguation and helpfully tells the reader what the initialism spells. Transit Authority of River City and Bay Area Rapid Transit are other examples where the initialism is commonly used, but it is nice to have an encyclopedia formally spell it out, and it is nice that the spelled-out name avoids the need for a parenthetical disambiguator. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- You basically rewrote what I said, about PATH having an "natural [and official] disambiguation". And an excellent observation regarding with TARC and BART, there BarrelProof. Roadrunner3000 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2014 (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 added archive links to 3 external links on PATH (rail system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.panynj.gov/drp/wtcpath/pathinfo.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101111212/http://online.wsj.com/article/APda7e4850e4484e0ca3d94672397fcc38.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/APda7e4850e4484e0ca3d94672397fcc38.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060329021221/http://www.pathrail.com/CommutingTravel/path/html/newsletter.html to http://www.pathrail.com/CommutingTravel/path/html/newsletter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on PATH (rail system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on PATH (rail system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

24x7

@Murph9000: Do they have a train from a station for every 1 minute? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: They have services scheduled to run 24 hours a day. Every minute is irrelevant. It meets the commonly accepted criteria / definition / standard of 24/7 service. There is a significant difference between just "every day" (your change), and 24x7. Murph9000 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: well, i am not saying my edit is accurate. But 24x7 isnt a good one either. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: What is not good or accurate about the current description? The system clearly does operate a 24x7 service, which can be trivially verified on the official website. I believe that the existing description in the article would be quite well understood by the average ordinary person in either the US or the UK. I'm not saying that the wording absolutely can't be improved, but the service is 24x7, and that's what the article needs to say. Murph9000 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that "24x7" or "24/7" are perfectly ordinary ways to say in idiomatic English writing that a transportation service is available at regular and reasonable intervals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that furthermore it does not imply that trains arrive every minute of every day or anything like that. I don't think anyone is going to take that implication. --Jfruh (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jfruh: this is a talkpage, and we are talking here. There is no need to put half message on talkpage, and half of it in edit summary. Kindly dont do it. @Murph9000: Almost all rail systems run 24x7 unless otherwise noted. "PATH trains run every day of the week with a high frequency of trains" can be used, or something like it. 24x7 usually means literally non-stop; like the shops as given example in the article of 24x7, or like electricity, or tap-water in metro cities. Wikipedia is about using the global english, and this idiom is going to baffle a lot of readers all around the world. Also, revert in India means "to reply", eg, "I reverted your email" means I replied. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you that in the united states, subway systems do not operate 24/7 as a rule -- PATH is one of the very few that do, and it's quite notable. At any rate, the article current lead includes the phrasing "24 hours a day 7 days a week," which I think is pretty descriptive and correct. --Jfruh (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran, in reading the article 24/7 service I saw under Examples, 24/7 service#Emergency services and transport. Those are examples like this train service. None of those transportation services listed never stop moving. They are though providing transportation services 24 hours a day 7 days a week. ~ GB fan 11:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Almost all rail systems run 24x7 unless otherwise noted. No, I believe the opposite is true. It is unusual or exceptional for a rail system to offer 24x7 passenger service. Most operate less than 24x7, which is why it's a notable detail to be mentioned in this article. Watering down the text to anything which does not include both "24 hours" and "7 days" in some form is detrimental to the article. For example, the London Underground runs every day with high frequency (and has done for a very long time), but had no 24x7 service until very recently, and the new 24x7 services there are not yet comprehensive. I strongly disagree with your assertion about "global english" and confusing people around the world. I do not believe this will in any way confuse a significant number of people who are fluent in English as used in North America or the United Kingdom, or be likely to confuse people in other areas where English is the primary language. I am unconcerned about cases where English is not the primary language. Frankly, I find the notion that any person with good comprehension of English would interpret this as some form of perpetual motion train to be quite absurd. Murph9000 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Another person just chiming in that the 24/7 wording is best. It's accurate, idiomatic, and a distinct feature of the system. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

It is just that, when 24x7 is mentioned; one expects to get service at any given moment. Like hotels, medical stores, hospital and so on. You go there at any time, and you get service/goods. Or like emergency calls; you make the call to cops and a first respondent gets there A-SAP, same for the fire department. They don't say "our next patrolling officer is expected to arrive in your area after 3 hours, till then kindly tell the murderer/burglar to wait in the waiting room". A passenger doesn't get a PATH train whenever he walks in the station. "Oh! a train just departed, but we will call it back for you" or "we will depart a (parked) train for you right now, with you being the only passenger." That was my point.

In the case "in the united states, subway systems do not operate 24/7 as a rule -- PATH is one of the very few that do, and it's quite notable", 24x7 is accurate. I didn't want to disagree for no reason. :-) I understood the circumstances here, and I rest my argument. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PATH (rail system)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 21:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will be the glutton for punishment who takes this monster on after it's languished here for over a year (is this a record?). Fortunately, I'm not unfamiliar with the subject, having grown up in the tristate area and ridden the PATH quite a few times; once it was even part of my daily commute.

I will, as I always do with GA reviews, first be printing it out for the light copyedit I usually do as part of the review process (I don't think copy issues should really be allowed to kill a nomination). This may well take until next week or so. Afterwards I'll be back with whatever I've got. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK ... following a copy edit that shaved almost 10K from the article (a sure sign there was fat, as it's the most an article I've worked on has ever shrunk from that process), I can start making comments.

Before anything else, and speaking of fat, we need to have a shorter intro. At six grafs it is two longer than MOS:LEAD recommends. I think that a lot of the stuff about the method of payment really isn't necessary in the article lead, for starters. The second graf is also way long.

I have decided to write and propose here a shorter intro (w/o links for now):

Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) , formerly the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad (H&M), is a a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) that operates a 13.8-mile (22.2 km) rapid transit system connecting 13 stations in the northern New Jersey cities of Newark, Harrison, Hoboken, and Jersey City with lower and midtown Manhattan. PATH trains run around the clock year round; four lines operate during the daytime on weekdays, while two operate during weekends, late nights, and holidays. Its tracks cross the Hudson River through century-old cast iron tubes that rest on the river bottom under a thin layer of silt. In Manhattan and near the New Jersey riverfront the trains remain underground; to the west they run in open cuts, at grade level, and on elevated track.

The routes of the PATH system were originally operated by the H&M, a commuter railroad built to link New Jersey's Hudson Waterfront with New York City. Between 1908 and 1911, it built the current system, with three additional stations that have since closed. The rise of automobile travel and the concurrent construction of bridges and tunnels across the river sent the H&M into an financial decline it never recovered from, leaving the PA to take over operations in 1960, six years after the railroad went bankrupt. Both private and public owners have proposed expanding PATH service in New Jersey; an extension to Newark Liberty International Airport is projected to start construction in 2020.

In recent years the system has suffered considerably from some of the disasters that have affected New York, most notably the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Sandy. PATH service is expensive for the PA to run since unlike other urban mass transit systems it is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, due to the H&M having at one point shared some track, and an interlocking, with the Pennsylvania Railroad; train operators must be licensed as railroad engineers. PATH currently uses one class of rolling stock, the PA5, which was delivered in 2009–2011.

See? Much shorter and gets at the important points. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll put this in tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, this is done. Fuller review with issues I want addressed later today, hopefully. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Review

OK. It has taken us long enough to get here.

The short answer is that I believe this article can pass. But there are some issues we need to address first. So it will be on hold.

I do not think it will be difficult. This reminds me of Lewis Hamilton, the only longer GA-nominated article I've taken on, in that has some similar issues: different writing voices, with similar tendencies to redundant wording and overly precise recording of dates. And I think that maybe that length could be addressed down the line by inducing labor and giving birth to a separate History of PATH article. But it's not essential yet.

Its length means it is comprehensive and tells me everything I would expect to find in a thoroughly researched article on PATH. The regulatory quirk whereby the railroad is under FRA jurisidiction? Check; it was explained. The video for "The Hardest Button to Button" being shot in a PATH station? Yup, it's there.

Now some specific issues, things I didn't feel were within my ambit as GA reviewer to change in a copy edit:

In the history section, could we find a shorter way to refer to the New York City Board of Transit Commissioners on second reference?
- @Daniel Case: I replaced this with "rapid transit commissioners". I don't think it can be shortened further without becoming confusing. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
In "1980s and 1990s", do we really need that level of detail about how the new car wash in Jersey City works? If we had a separate stand-alone article on that yard, I'd say it belongs there. But not in the top-level article about PATH.
- I removed it to the 33rd Street station (PATH) article. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, do we need a full graf describing the new entrance to Exchange Place (and speaking of that station, I always wonder if there might be a reliable source describing something my dad told me commuters would do at that station in the '70s and they were in the mood for a little fun: when the train pulled into the station and the PA would announce it, a lot of people would get up and sit in someone else's recently vacated seat across the aisle (Get it? "Exchange Place. Exchange Place." ) I don't the article describes any other station's improvements in such detail, and since that station has its own article, which I think has that detail, I don't see why this article needs it as well.
- I could remove these details. In regards to the PA system (speaking of ... I'll address the use of "PA" further down), that sounds fun, but maybe not a big enough detail to be included . Maybe Kew Gardens 613 knows something. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the failed 2006 terror plot really relevant here? It doesn't seem to have resulted in any disruption to service or major changes in PATH operations.
- Moved down to "incidents" section. I'm not sure, but I think at the time it may have been a big deal. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
In the last graf of "2010s improvements", the original article suddenly switched to using the station abbreviations to describe the routes, rather than the full words as the rest of the article does. I switched them to the latter for consistency's sake, but I think this raises a valid question: should the whole article use abbreviations like "NWK-WTC" or "HOB-33D" for brevity's sake? Does the Port Authority show a preference in its internal usage.
- I switched the abbreviations. I personally think we should use abbreviations. However, in its schedule PANYNJ uses the full names. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The scale map of the PATH system shows a bit of red line continuing past Newark. Is this meant to represent the yard, of sorts, along the tracks south of the station that you can see from Route 21 as you're driving up to it from 22/78? If so, is it really necessary since passenger service does not go there? The other two maps don't show it, and neither does the Port Authority's own map, for that matter.
- There are storage tracks south of Newark, so yes, that could be a reason. Also, this will be part of the future Newark Airport extension. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That picture of the old 19th Street station does not fit well in the section with the table listing all present and former stations. I think it could easily be moved up to the "Decline and bankruptcy" section's last graf, where it would be relevant, and where there is currently no image.
- Done.
I'm wondering if some sort of color coding (for the services?) might help make the station table more usable?
- Like with {{rcb}}? Sure. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we usually include such detailed fare information in our articles about other rapid transit rail systems that don't have flat fares? Washington Metro doesn't, but then that's a much more complicated fare system. But neither does the article on Hong Kong's MTR.
Per WP:NOTTRAVEL: "An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." I think this applies to a detailed description of PATH fares. If someone has done a lot of work putting this together and would resist very much having to take it out, I think Wikivoyage (where we do not yet have a page on PATH, and I don't see why not) would be an ideal place for it.
- Well, the New York City Subway article has five paragraphs about fares, but much of this is fare history rather than real-time fares. So does AirTrain JFK, a similar system in the tri-state area. I suppose we can take the detailed "fares" section out, since we already have an article called New York City transit fares. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
While the section on the history of PATH's fare structure and collection actually works, I'd love to see some pictures of these older machines.

Alright; I've got more but it's getting late. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OK again ...

The third graf of "Current roster" largely repeats the information about the 2010-era purchase of new cars from Siemens. It belongs in only one section—frankly I think this one is better for it as it is where rolling stock is more specifically discussed. Yes, we can leave a mention of it in a sentence or two in the other section.
- I trimmed the mention of PA5 in other sections. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice, maybe, if we could put a picture of the Harrison yard in. Do we have one? If not, it should be easy to get IME.
- Not really. And I doubt anyone will do that soon. Even if not outright illegal, it's suspicious to take any pictures on PATH property. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: What I was thinking was that you can get pictures from the NJT lines nearby while you're riding those trains. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: That would be pretty hard since I don't ride NJT or even take PATH regularly. Maybe we can ask someone in WP:NJ or WP:NYC. epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I should have been clearer that I didn't mean you have to get it. And that it's not essential for GA. I just think it's a good idea going forward.

I also was looking at it on Google Maps after writing that last night. It seems like a good picture could be taken from one of those factory lots across the river. And of course a drone is always a possibility (I can also see if anyone on Flickr might have taken a free image). Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a drone, but I'm not taking it all the way to Jersey, since it would look suspicious on a PATH train in the first place

. Anyway, I agree that Flickr may be the best way to go. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, what about the car storage you see along the tracks south of Newark Penn Station? I know it's not a yard, but it's pretty prominent, especially when you pass them going towards or from that station in that direction, and perhaps we should mention it.
- These are just reversing tracks for the NWK-WTC line. It is about as notable as the center tracks in some NYC Subway tunnels, that is, they get one-sentence mentions. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The detail about how the A and C PA4 cars could be hooked together, particularly the last sentence of the fourth graf of "Former roster", really seems to be belaboring the point. Especially since those cars are no longer in use.
- I trimmed these. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, do we really need all the car numbers for the train that was underneath the WTC on 9/11, much less the detail about how differently they were affected? Please. We're getting into foamer territory with this.
- Cars 745 and 143 are notable as being preserved, so I've left these cars' numbers. I removed the other cars' numbers. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think both subsections of the "major incidents" section would be better off as bulleted lists.
- I see what you mean. It's awkward, especially for the first subsection. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, are the escalators depicted in the image the escalators that stopped suddenly? Do we have some sort of source verifying this? If not, I'd just as much we removed the image, since it isn't doing anything there other than creating formatting headaches for the sections below.
- I don't know, so removed the image. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the footnotes that cite The New York Times include the paper's ISSN number. This is something I've not done myself, nor seen anyone else doing. I would have removed them, but WP:ISSN says this is not to be done (with emphasis). Are we OK with this inconsistency? If not, we need to put the ISSN in every cite to the Times.
- I put in ISSN to all Times citations. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I see notes 8, 9, 27, 42, 43, 45, 48, 54, 60, 78–80, 89, 90, 92–94, 96, 97, 102–104, 111, 115, 116, 118, 128, 196, 204–206 and 265 still needing ISSNs. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I did that now. That was 50 refs where the code was =[[The New York Times]] instead of =The New York Times. Not sure why there were some instances of NY Times that were linked, and others weren't. epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: They may have been cites that I added or cleaned up. I always link the source name if we have an article on it no matter how many times we use it in citations; that's explicitly exempt from WP:OVER. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions of style

First, we need to decide whether we should say "PATH" or "the PATH". From perusing the PA's website, I get the feeling the agency prefers the former, but newspaper articles and, in my experience, colloquial everyday usage in Manhattan and northeastern New Jersey use the article (I recall it being used the first time I was ever taken on it as a child in the mid-'70s).
If we decide that both are merited in different contexts, we also need to decide what those contexts are.
Right now the article is all over the place on this. I did not feel comfortable picking a winner all by myself without consensus.
- Not sure about this either, since sometimes I tend to accidentally omit "the" before proper names. The usage of the definite article is inconsistent in general, though, especially since I also speak Chinese, a language with no definite article. ~~But in this case if "PATH" is an adjective, it has no definite article, and if "PATH" is a noun, it does.~~ Anyway, that may be a topic for another discussion. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  - Actually, that's not correct. If "PATH" was used in the nominative or dative case, it had no article, but if "PATH" was in the accusative, it did. Anyhow, it's standardized now so that all noun uses don't have "the" before "PATH". epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am still not comfortable with always using "PANYNJ" as the abbreviation for the Port Authority. Yes, the agency always calls itself that, but I can't help but notice that the article, when it uses a spelled-out term, overwhelmingly prefers just the two words without the states' names.
And for good reason—doing that is, to me, tantamount to always insisting that Emilia Clarke's character in Game of Thrones be referred to as "[{Danaerys Targaryen]] the Stormborn, the Unburnt, First of that Name, Breaker of Chains and Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea" or whatever, in our articles. The acronym is "PATH", not "PANYNJTH", after all.
I note that Port Authority Bus Terminal doesn't seem to have this problem. I also don't see much evidence that "PA" isn't used much outside of Wikipedia. One of this article's own sources doesn't have a problem putting "PA" in the hed (although it does seem to me as if copy editors try to avoid having to take a side on this one.
Really, I don't see how we would be confusing the reader by just using "PA". What else in this article could it possibly be referring to?
- As for "PA", it could mean "Port Authority", or it could be "public announcements", "Pennsylvania", or any number of other things. The reason why "PANYNJ" is used because it's the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The short name, "Port Authority", tends not to be abbreviated to PA.
  On the other hand, "Port Authority Bus Terminal" is abbreviated to "PABT" because it's not called the "Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bus Terminal". It can be abbreviated to "PA Bus Terminal" because now it has the context that it's not called "Pennsylvania Bus Terminal" or something.
  This actually reminds me of why, in this article, I didn't refer to the agency as "Port Authority", either. The bus terminal is also called "Port Authority". Even though the bus terminal is not explicitly mentioned in the PATH article, it can still be confusing. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think, in the context of this article, anybody is going to think it means Pennsylvania (outside of its use in the name of the railroad during the history section, and the reference to PATCO Connection in See Also, it's not mentioned). We strongly discourage in article text that otherwise common practice of using the two-letter postal abbreviations for the states, to begin with.

Public address? Where in the article would that create confusion.

Again, it doesn't seem to bother the Bergen Record's copy desk (Or here).

Look, I understand that just using it without an antecedent nearby would be a little confusing. But, when you say "The Port Authority did X" in the beginning of a graf, I don't think "PA" used later on would be too problematic. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I know it may not be directly confused with "Pennsylvania" or "public announcement" within the context of this article. However, the PANYNJ abbreviation is used in other articles, including these pages, so it's more of a matter of consistency especially in regards to potentially ambiguous acronyms. I'd be fine with using "Port Authority" though, because something similar is used in Construction of the World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973–2001). epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: oknazevad reverted my edit yesterday to change "PANYNJ" to "Port Authority". I don't think the abbreviation (or lack there is a major issue anyway, so how should we go forward?

@Epicgenius: I'm inclined to leave it as is ... I think there isn't any consensus one way or the other and that this requires a discussion independent of this GA nom. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Well, that's what I have. I'm putting the article on hold until we address these things or decide what we want to do, or not to. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks for your thorough review. I've replied to all of the issues you brought up. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. After I fixed a couple of typoes I had left behind, everything checks out. This article will ✓ Pass. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Commuter rail?

Recently the category Category:Commuter rail in the United States was added here by PATHrailsystem. However, according to the article itself, it is better classified as rapid transit with railroad regulations (see https://web.archive.org/web/20090320183439/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/886), despite being legally commuter rail.

On the commuter rail article it says commuter rail is longer-distance, mostly lower-frequencies, serving lower-density suburbs, not fully grade-separated, and sharing right-of-way with intercity or freight trains. On the other hand, rapid transit is grade-separated, has its own ROW, and is high-frequency. The PATH is on a schedule, connects several suburbs, and shares right of way with mainline railroads. However, it's also very high frequency, grade-separated, and not long-distance with the exception of NWK-WTC. That's why I'm opening this discussion about whether we should include this category. epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, it's classified as rapid transit, not commuter rail, by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). So we already have an authoritative source that's made the call. As for the commuter rail like aspects mentioned, none of them really apply. Yes, PATH has published timetables, but does the New York City Subway, and PATH really operates on a headway paradigm. Its tracks between Journal Square and Newark Penn do run alongside mainline railroads, but it shares no tracks with them, and is just adjacent, like the Orange Line in Boston. This is in contrast to pretty much any NJ Transit service, where intercity and freight trains use the exact same tracks. As for calling Jersey City and Newark suburban, yeah, no. Hudson County and Newark are wholly urban by any standards. Just because they're smaller cities than New York City doesn't make them suburban in character or density. PATH is not a commuter railroad, even if it is used by commuters. oknazevad (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I was agreeing with the removal of the commuter rail category. By suburbs, I was thinking places like Harrison, but that looks like there's only one suburb in that listing. However, it looks like there's still a small possibility of confusion because at first glance, this looks like a commuter rail system. epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I removed the category first earlier today. I don't see much that really looks like a commuter system at any glance. Does it connect to cities outside the main city? Yes. So do a lot of rapid transit metro systems (like the aforementioned Boston). Political boundaries have little to do with such categories. And in those cities the station spacing, save for the run between Journal Square and Harrison, is typical of metro systems (and even that isn't that long). There are systems that blur the line between commuter rail and rapid transit (BART comes to mind), but PATH isn't one of them. (These are to sort of discussions we often have at the List of metro systems talk page, so it's rather old hat for me.) oknazevad (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions