User talk:Epicgenius

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

To-do list for Epicgenius: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-10-17 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: To do : See To Do List

---

---

Archives

Archive links by month 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Signpost Sandbox discussions User talk:Epic Failure Other talk pages: Commons talk Wikidata talk Simple English talk

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Very important userboxes MORE This user has more userboxes. This user has an alternative account named Accessedgrant. END This user has no more userboxes.

---

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

---

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2025-2029 Capital Program recently came out. Some articles may need to be updated to reflect this. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

• Needs history section
• Needs design section, which I will write shortly
• Needs destruction section
• "List of tenants" may need to be split to a separate article due to length
• "92nd Floor" section needs removed and incorporated into above "Destruction" section

• Needs history section
• Needs design section
• Needs destruction section
• Potentially needs rewrite, after reading it I spotted a few errors

• Actually has a history section, but needs expanded
• Rewrite Destruction section
• May need a "design" section

• Has history and destruction sections
• Both need expanded
• More images needed

• Half of the article is about 9/11, meaning half of the article is about 1 day when the structure existed for 31 years
• Needs a design section
• Either the gallery section needs removed or expanded to comply with MOS, it's currently just 3 images chilling around

• Needs architecture section
• Needs more history pre-2001
• The destruction section may need to be summarized per WP:SUMSTYLE

I added the above subheaders just in case we need a list of things to do. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Thanks for starting this section. I might move this to User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do when we're done figuring out what to do (since idk where else to put it). Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Construction of the World Trade Center has some info about the Twin Towers' structural design, so we can copy some of the relevant info into these articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 18:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC).

Hello Epicgenius! Congrats on your recent election. I was wondering if you'd be willing to mentor me on a Featured Article Nomination. Looking over the articles I've created, I think First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) may have viability for a nomination - while it is short, I do believe it to be comprehensive of the subject. Please let me know if this is something you'd be willing to do. Thank you! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro, thanks, I appreciate it. Sure, I can probably take a look within a week. I do have one question, quickly skimming the article - is anything known about the first cathedral's architecture? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I think to say it had any architecture other than "fairly simple log cabin" would be a stretch, from what I know (unlike the other log cabin I've written an article about). However, I'm no expert in log cabin architecture. I don't recall seeing anything about that when I wrote the article, though it's been a year now; I imagine I would have included it had I seen anything. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Nonetheless, I would double-check to see if there's any information relating to the chapel's architecture, congregation, clergy, etc. However, as this subject is fairly old and no longer exists, I agree that there may not be much in that regard. Maybe the only thing that's actually missing is some info about how it relates to the second, third, and current cathedrals of Saint Paul. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it a bit and see if I can find anything. As far as clergy goes, the only clergy who served at it were Lucien Galtier and Augustin Ravoux, mentioned in the article, before it was retired and became a school. Re: your second point, if you'd like it more fleshed out than what's in the second-to-last paragraph of #History, I can certainly do that. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the only clergy who served at it were Lucien Galtier and Augustin Ravoux,
That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I only skimmed the article, so I missed that. Once I take a closer look at the article later, I'll post other feedback on the talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Aqueduct Walk has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have experience with articles about public parks, I thought I'd let you know about something I'll be working on soon. I've had the idea for a few years to promote Bicentennial Capitol Mall State Park to a featured article. My goal now is to promote it so it can appear as Today's Featured Article on its 30th anniversary. This is also part of a larger idea I've had for some time to promote articles in the Tennessee State Capitol complex to GA, and create a good topic. Since I promoted the article to GA almost three years ago, I have acquired a book written by one of the architects of the park, and I think this goal is now feasible. I'll be starting soon, although I have a few other projects I'm working on now that I'd like to finish first. That being said, would you happen to have any suggestions for improving this article. Would you also be interesting in reviewing it when I nominate it for FA candicacy? Bneu2013 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013, thanks for bringing this up. Sure, I'd be interested in providing feedback. I can take a deeper look later, but at a quick glance:

• The Park history section has a few parts that feel like WP:PROSELINE writing (e.g. On X date, Y happened). I would mix up the sentence order a little, and/or provide more details as to the park history, which can mitigate this somewhat.
• I'd also recommend expanding the post-opening history. Two paragraphs are given over to planning, and one is given to construction and post-opening; people at FAC may point to this as lacking balance, as a result.
• A map of the different features, while not necessary, may be helpful for the Description section.
• Bicentennial Capitol Mall State Park, commonly known as Bicentennial Mall, is an urban linear landscaped state park in downtown Nashville, Tennessee - Per MOS:FIRSTLOCATION, it is generally recommended to include the country after the city and state name, for articles about physical structures. I mention this only because an FAC was recently archived after gaining five opposes because someone refused to add "United States" after the state name.

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I totally agree with the post-opening expansion. I couldn't find much about this online at the time, but the book I've got now is very detailed about this. I also think think the first sentence might have too much MOS:SEAOFBLUE in it. Anyways, it's looking like I might get to this sooner than I thought, and so I'll keep you posted. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thinking about it as well, it may be a good idea to beef up the article with more secondary sources. Some people may consider a book by the park's architect to be a primary source, so I would be mindful of that. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 00:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still having to correct the hyper-precise coordinates you are putting in articles (and now also on Wikidata). Please conform to the guideline at WP:OPCOORD. Abductive (reasoning) 11:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive, in this case the previous coordinates were correct. The previous library, the Carnegie Library (Atlanta), only occupied a portion of the block (it was literally at the corner). Your edits changed the coordinates to those of the current Atlanta Central Library, which does occupy the full block. Please consider reverting your edit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but six digits is false precision. The correct level of precision along with the accuracy needed can be achieved. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 March 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article High Bridge (New York City) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my Mark Tully entry from the WikiCup entry page? It was an ITN entry, which according to the rules, there is no a length requirement for ITN. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E, the extent of your additions consisted of two citations. That is, in my view, not nearly enough to count for points. There is a length requirement for all content submissions to the Cup, not for ITN specifically; please see the General rules section, specifically the bullet point All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive round points..

If you disagree, please bring it up at WT:CUP and I'll ping the other judges to look at it. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. But please also note, I did add further content and cleaned up and cited it for the nomination. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know. I do think the other judges' opinions on this would be helpful, as I'm still not that sure that a sentence and a few citations constitute "significant" work. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Guardians (TV series) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 29 § Guardians (TV series) until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice, about "a headquarters building in Manhattan, New York. Designed by Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo, two proteges of the famous American architect Eero Saarinen, it was completed in 1967 and became New York City's youngest landmark 30 years later. By far its most prominent feature is an indoor atrium rising the building's entire 12-story height, with plantings and a rooftop skylight. The headquarters also includes offices, but by many accounts these are incidental to the atrium, which was the first in a Manhattan office building."! - And thank you for all the other building projects up to quality! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]