Talk:Grand Central Terminal

Station logo

Placing the station logo image in the name field sets the logo on a white background unnecessarily. In my opinion, it looks bad, or at least less than optimal. It looks like a jpeg image without a transparent background. The white background is inherated from the faux sign design generated by the name field. The template is trying to include the image, like it's placed on the sign. The "type" field makes equally little sense, but with the added benefit that the image displays on a transparent background. If the issue of the image displaying above or below the "Metro-North Railroad terminal" text can be overcome by placing the logo before or after the text. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Should definitely be above that text. But that text is autogenerated by the navbox calling the MNR styling, and always is directly below the faux-sign name. That's why the logo (which does appear on signs in the building, too) was placed where it was. If you have a workaround, give it a shot. oknazevad (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See, this is why the talk page can be handy. I didn't realize the white background issue. My screen and phone are very high-contrast, so this doesn't even display differently unless I change my settings. Here's my opinion - article infoboxes always have a name and logo at the very top (when both are available), followed by other descriptive information. For a descriptive header to appear between these is not in line with the rest of Wikipedia. Also, the spacing is pretty perfect, while most alternatives are less than ideal. I'll try out other options... ɱ (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I found a solution that only adds a slight bit of space. Let me know what you think. ɱ (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer the white/old version, I think it makes sense for the "sign" and logo to both appear the same. ɱ (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For record, the "Metro-North Railroad terminal" text is NOT autogenerated by the navbox calling the MNR styling. It's generated by the "type" param, and in my opinion, of very questionable utility.

If that's the order preferred (faux sign, logo, type description), then I like the ɱ's solution using the <p> line break. Didn't know about that code until now.

With that change it looks correct, not like a low-quality jpeg placed on the page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Common term

25, 2023, 16:30 - «Restored revision 1171637845 by Certes talk): Common term, see MOS:OVERLINK»

@Ɱ: Well the Lost and found may be a commonly seen thing in the US, but for foreigners it's not as familiar ... It might be common for international airports but not just stations. I don't see how that link pollute article either. I suggest we put it back.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a self-explanatory term that is easily searchable for those who are unfamiliar. And it's not too relevant to the topic: trains, stations, New York City, etc. The concept of a wine bar could also be unfamiliar to some foreigners, yet we again don't link things that are dictionary definitions that are not really relevant to the topic. ɱ (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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:

> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material

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.

I commented out the {{navboxes}} 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)