Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:B67 and B69 buses: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Epicgenius moved page Talk:B67 (New York City bus) to Talk:B67 and B69 buses without leaving a redirect: move article to "B67 and B69 buses" following page merger
fix
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{merged-from|B69 (New York City bus)|4 October 2024}}
{{merged-from|B69 (New York City bus)|4 October 2024}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Trains|importance=low|NYPT=yes|NYPT-importance=low|streetcars=yes}}
{{WikiProject Trains|importance=low|NYPT=yes|NYPT-importance=low|streetcars=yes}}
{{WikiProject Buses|importance=low|NYPT=yes|NYPT-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Buses|importance=low|NYPT=yes|NYPT-importance=low}}

Latest revision as of 20:37, 29 November 2024

Routings:

  • 1874: didn't exist yet
  • 1898: Fulton Ferry or South Ferry to 9th? and 20th via Water, Washington, Concord, Adams, Fulton, Boerum, Atlantic, 5th, Flatbush, 7th, 20th
  • 1906: Park Row or Fulton Ferry to 9th and 20th via Fulton, Flatbush, 7th, 20th; South Ferry to 7th and 20th via Atlantic, Flatbush, 7th
  • 1916: Park Row to 7th? and 20th via Sands, Adams, Boerum, Atlantic, Flatbush, 7th; South Ferry to 7th? and 20th (rush hours only) via Atlantic, Flatbush, 7th

Merging the B67 and B69 pages

[edit]

My fault for not doing this earlier, but I want to propose merging the B67 and B69 pages. They share around half of their route together, and have interlined frequencies and share a timetable with each other, and considering that other route groups that share this share a page, I was thinking the same could happen for the B67 and B69. Ex696 (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ex696: support; sounds very reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Sigh. This is on me-I had mentioned opposition to this elsewhere, but with school kept forgetting to get back to this. I feel that the routes (and their streetcar histories) are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. The merge was somewhat sloppily done, and does not distinguish the two separate lines. If the merge is kept (and there is a valid argument for it), another name would be needed-it doesn't specify the B69 route (and it seems like we would need to add clarification that they would be NY routes). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613, I agree regarding the merge. The way it is now, the B69 takes a metaphorical backseat to the B67, when in reality these should be described on equal footing, similarly to the other combo articles like B61 and B62 buses.
If there's no opposition to retaining this merge, I'll move the page to B67 and B69 buses, too, while we think about a permanent name. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]