Jump to content

Talk:Subway Challenge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class A is Defined Incorrectly

[edit]

According to the ANYSRC official website, in order to complete Class A "the contestants making the run must traverse completely at least once each segment of right-of-way of the Transit Authority system. Each segment may be traversed either in one continuous transit or in any number of partial transits between stations on the segment." The article defines Class A as riding at least one stop per line, while the ANYSRC defines Class A as riding every segment of right-of-way in the entire system. (Not every stop on every line, if two segments run within a hundred feet of each other they are considered the same. [ex. the D and A between 59th st. and 145th st., any line that runs on the same path in opposite directions, etc.]) Ratzfert1 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l sources

[edit]

See Talk:New York City Subway#Record for riding entire system for additional sources. Tinlinkin (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the 1966 time the longest of all?

[edit]

Subj. Vcohen (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1988

[edit]

Corrected time and citation for dec 1988 Temple/Murphy/Vanner record Bigthud (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

Is this article in need of a clean up? Possibly needs a fresh look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifteen Forty-five Thirty-eight (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is it in need of reorganization? Why, of course it is, because no one has ever traveled the entire NYC subway system in 24 hours.* (just joking. :P)
*Technically, since the 7 Subway Extension opened, no one has ever tried all 469 stations. Epic Genius (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subway Challenge. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subway Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subway Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I do not want to be associated with number 12 scource i did not learn about this challenge from reading a shitty site such as wikipedia legal challenge will be issued if wikipedia claim that a scource that i have no party to and i have the right not to be associated with an opinion i like wikipedia i dont the site is full of scumbage overinflated people who dont follow their own guide lines if the article doesnt get changed that my name is not associated with scource 12 or words amended that i want no part of reading from wikipedia which i did not so illegal scource! you cannot quote my name to it amend the wording which im happy to let you do but if u keep in current state legal procedings will be issued to wikipedia and each editor that continues to change baxck to orifginal version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help you. The information is reliably sourced. You might want to contact the Foundation--Please send all other legal questions or requests to:

Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017 legal@wikimedia.org-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Just noting that Andi James's name wasn't sourced in a previous version of the article, so it was removed by Ritchie333. However, all five team member's names are mentioned on the Guinness World Records website. This is presumably why it was added in the first place, though I don't care either way for its inclusion in the article. epicgenius (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the IP is getting so upset about this - it's a subway ride, not an international drugs cartel - but like Epicgenius I don't think it's of paramount importance to name these people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Bournemouth daily newspaper also names six people, three as double-challenge recordbreakers and three more. PamD 16:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC
No interest in including any of the names. It's a pity this discussion did not occur 2 years ago, when various IP's started objecting. I posted the WMF contact 'cause if the usual processes are not working for them and they're up to calling a lawyer, the WMF can satisfy them faster than our processes here. We've had two years of edit warring, page protection and now a legal threat.
If the content is reliably sourced, and does not impugn them, we probably would not remove the content. If you read the above complaint and it makes sense to you, please explain it to me. The objection appears to be "association with source 12." Whatever that is. It sounds to me like trollish bluster and may be vandalism and false. ("a shitty site like wikipedia"). If they contact WMF, they will need to prove their identity and their standing to request take down. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this has been going on at least three years and probably eight: see Talk:Tube Challenge/Archive 1 for a history of the discussion there. If the IP were really who he claims to be, then at some point he could have filed an OTRS ticket and gotten the material removed. The fact that he hasn't...draw your own conclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say this person is trolling, given that source 13 does mention this guy's name, and it's right next to source 12, at the end of the same exact sentence. The previous version of the article: The British team consisted of [the names of the five British dudes]. The competitors had learned about the Subway Challenge from reading Wikipedia, and used an unusual route, achieving a time 26 minutes shorter than the former record, as confirmed by Guinness World Records on May 30, 2014,.[12][13] Either that, or someone just has horrendous spelling and grammar, in which case I'd say it's a WP:CIR issue on top of all the legal threats. epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Honestly, I've been dealing with it as if it's your first theory for at least the past two years. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That obvious, huh? ...I'll see myself out. epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep up. Is the trolling obvious or am I unusually obtuse even for me?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Well, in addition to the sourcing thing I pointed out above, there's also Talk:Tube Challenge/Archive 1. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Palkanetoijala/Archive(someone also made a legal threat to keep this same person's name off the Tube Challenge page). I think C.Fred can tell you more, since he seems more familiar with the case. epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is this wikipedia have blatantly gone against their rules and refused to apologise to myself the current record holder of the london underground source 1 is ok not scource 2 which is illegal as you are using an archived version! if the record holder has gone to the expense of changing the article guinness world records just so wikipedia cannot use it because they refuse to apologise and admit when they are wrong this is not trolling or bullshit i have more knowledge on the article than wikipedia editors some are good others are over inflated egoheads who seem never to admit when they are wrong! hence a scource from the daily telegraph which i kept repeating was not a legal scource despite it being in a newspaper if a scource is not grammatically correct then i as an individual have the right for my name not to be associated with it.

hence the article in portsmouth news if u read the article it quite clearly states glen bryant read the challenge from reading wikipedia competitor not competitors (as the edits i did clearly stated that this was wrong but no wikipedia kept changing it back to original and as wikipedia refuse to apologise in past i object to any material that wikipedia use in reference to my name endorsing them especially. you have actually done the right thing by leaving my name off the article but the trouble it has actually taken you to actually see sense and just see common sense and decency is something wikipedia sadly lacks off. all i wanted in the end was a simple apology from wikipedia which i have never received in fact i got an email of one editor basic telling me his views and to stop editing the site and never to have attempted the record in the first place thats a biased view and one that wikipedia editors who are supposed to be neutral in all cases sadly appear as above lack of especially mr c fred in my opinion has been particulary a very bad editor skirts around the truth uses bullshit to get round simple logic of admitting when wikipedia articles are wrong i have gone down the legal route a few times just in order to get a simple apology but as you say wikipedia doesnt like legal threats then listen to the people you right about in future! 

if you are wrong just admit it put your hands up engage with the person involved and apologise! i will withdraw my legal threat from wikipedia if in turn an apology is issued simple as ah but you dont have a central admin policy do you as an organisation that accepts donations i think that is probably illegal and down right dishonest! but eh i quoted your own guidelines against you followed them yet your own editors blatantly didnt follow procedure in some cases that has been my point all along and hence why i dont use wikipedia as it is a scumbag site sorry my opinion thats all i will await my apology. ps you should really change the tube challenge article and stop using an archived scource that is illegal in itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.162 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again i shall point out what is the harm in saying that glen bryant was the person who had read the challenge from wikipedia which is what the scource actually says which is the truth(the word competitors implies an falsehood where wikipedia believe that the team of 5 read the challenge this is a blatant lie and further example of pig headness by wikipedia editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.16 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Map

[edit]

The article currently begins by saying that 472 stations are required since the 7 line was extended and the 2nd Av. subway opened. Then an official map of the system is shown and claimed to illustrate the 472 stations required. But currently it is an old map from 2013 and does not show those two additions to the system, so it does not show 472 stations. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Vcohen (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

[edit]

Hello. Request permission to edit, please. 

There are two records missing, from 1967 and 1973. They are in the 1973 and 1978 books respectively.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directionoftravel (talk • contribs) 05:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: @Directionoftravel: Please provide the record holders and their times, and preferably, the page of the GWR book. Sceptre (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Morgan Chu and six others (unnamed) set a record of 22 hours 11 1/2 minutes for 475 stations on 3 August 1967. This is in the 1973 book on page 152. The station count is given as 475. Note that in the 1970 book on page 137, Michael Feldman and James Brown's 1966 record also has this total, not 491. Should this be reviewed?

Mayer Wiesen and Charles Emerson set a record of 21 hours 8 1/2 minutes for 460 stations on 8 October 1973. This is in the 1978 book on page 140.

I have only seen these editions so far but I think it likely that other records were set between 1966 and 1988.

A record for the Paris Metro is listed in the 1970 and 1973 books, as you can see in the images, and is mentioned on this page with Berlin. There are one or two other systems, and I therefore wonder if it is worth creating an 'other cities' section on this page. It would be better here than on the 'Tube Challenge' page, as "tube" refers very much to the London Underground, whereas "subway" can refer to many systems in the world. Directionoftravel (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me

[edit]

Yea um so i think i broke the world record i got 258,548 2601:243:100:190:11D0:A2F3:9113:2F57 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&oldid=1205494099"