Talk:Grand Central Terminal

Template limit and prose size

As of Special:Diff/1198471696 the article no longer fits into technical limitations on templates, as can be seen by missing transclusion of Template:Navboxes at the bottom.

The prose size is 11626 words, which per WP:SIZERULE:

Section § History should probably be trimmed down to a summary of corresponding article History of Grand Central Terminal. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion. I'll make a few bold excisions. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with these removals, there are two things I think should still be mentioned: the completion of electrification (in 1907), which was the impetus for constructing this station in the first place, and the closure of the old station. These two details use existing references, so no additional templates should be required.Template:PbI commented out the Template:Tl template shell as it was adding over 100,000 additional bytes to the post-expand include size for some reason. The PEIS is now 1,919,488/2,097,152 bytes - still not a lot of room, but it should be enough until we can summarize the history section further. I will note that, while SIZERULE does say that pages over 9,000 words "probably should be divided or trimmed", it also says "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". The latter does seem to be the case here, as the GCT, like other famous NYC buildings, has received a lot of coverage in reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Grand Central “Station” and the quality of the design

I was born in New York, I live in New York, and I am a co-author of New York 1900, Metropolitan Architecture and Urbanism 1890-1915, in which we wrote about Grand Central. I think it is a mistake to validate some people's incorrectly calling Grand Central Terminal "Grand Central Station." You mainly see it called "Grand Central Station" in writing by people who don't know better. New Yorkers mainly refer to it as "Grand Central." Some of the books on Grand Central correct of station misnomer. Second, Grand Central can lay claim to being the greatest railroad terminal (or station) in the world. That is partly because of its engineering, and partly because of its architectural design, which is superb. Just blocks apart, the New York Public Library at 42nd Street and Grand Central are two of the greatest architectural designs in America. This article does not give enough credit to the architectural quality of Grand Central. There should be a better balance between the description of the design, the engineering, and the facts like the acreage, in my opinion. JMassengale (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to edit my comment on my iPad, so I add this. Grand Central Terminal is a station. But I think the article puts too much on "Grand Central Station" by putting the name in the first sentence, immediately after "Grand Central Terminal," and then by repeating the information farther down.

Grand Central Terminal is a station, but calling it "Grand Central Station" is not correct. Did the original article do that, or are these later changes? JMassengale (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply-to FWIW, I find your concerns kind of amusing. In the introductory paragraph, it's completely appropriate to describe the names by which it is currently known and/or by which it has been known in its prior incantations. Furthermore, the claim that it's "colloquially and affectionately" known by the name of "Grand Central Station" is actually a direct quote from the BBC article. Maybe you should be seeking a correction from that article's author. Fabrickator (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)