Talk:MBTA subway

Wiki neologism

This uses as its title a name which is neither official nor colloquial, and claims that the "official name" is a near-literal nonce phrase. It also implies that the RT operations, which are overwhelmingly surface, are subway. Anmccaff (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

MBTA Subway is an acceptable name for the article (though MBTA Rapid Transit or MBTA rapid transit is probably better); all three of those are defensible from MBTA documentation including the Bluebook. Anything with 'Boston' is definitely not a correct name - 29 miles of the current system is in Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Quincy, Braintree, Revere, Medford, and Malden; next year will add 1.5 miles in Chelsea, and the GLX 4 more miles in Somerville and Medford - and nowhere is that used anywhere in official sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the time it was still saying The Boston Subway (commonly referred to as "the T" and officially Massachusetts Bay Rapid Transit), which was wrong on so many levels it is hard to keep track. There's a slight disconnect, even now,between "MBTA subway", which is used in some T pubs for all RT operations, and "MBTA rapid transit", which a little more accurate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Use either, or both, MBTA Subway or MBTA Rapid Transit, but they are both referenced in the Bluebook, and that's probably the best source for a definition. I don't think "The Rapid Transit" is specific enough to this system and is quite ambiguous. Also, I agree that "The T" is vague and colloquial, but we could also mention that the system is sometimes referred to as "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither "MBTA Subway" nor "MBTA Rapid Transit" appear more than once in the Bluebook, and rarely in other sources. Neither is a definitive official title; your edits to the lede are misleading and in some cases flat-out wrong. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Following this argument, perhaps the name of this article is misleading. In which case, we would go with "The unnamed heavy rail, light rail, and bus transit services in the Boston metropolitan area operated by the MBTA". Basically, I'm just trying to say that MBTA Subway is not misleading or incorrect, and would provide for a logical lead paragraph. On the MBTA website it is referred to as "the Subway" or "Subway", which would be too ambiguous for an article title on Wikipedia, so we use MBTA Subway. Tylr00 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

On List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership, this system is named both MBTA Subway and The T. See also the section below titled "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'm not a complete absolutist about wiki being unusable as a reference, but this seems to be an excellent example of why it can be. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because it doesn't provide you with confirmation bias? The basis of my argument is that I believe the system does have a name, and has a colloquial name Tylr00 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll pass over the try at mind-reading. Look at that article, it defines the "MBTA Subway ("The T") as the (Blue, Orange, and Red Lines, while linking to an article about the MBTA as a whole, which describes the whole system as "the T". Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This argument tries to say that a name can only have one meaning, but whose meaning has not been clearly defined by even the MBTA. Certainly, "The T" can refer to the system as a whole, but "the T" also does refer to the subway system, colloquially. See Metonymy on how we use terms such as Beacon Hill to mean the state government of Massachusetts or to refer to the historic neighborhood in Boston. The only entities defined legally at play here are "Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" and "MassDOT". Otherwise, we're looking at a nickname not even clearly defined by MBTA . Tylr00 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You really do need to get the Mind-reading device calibrated. This argument..or, at least my argument, is that a name used for any encyclopedia entry should be as precise, official, and unambiguous as possible -figures of speech are not welcome here; that Wiki has a real prejudice about capitalization, reserving it only for particular proper phrases, and therefor, in Wikish, "MBTA Subway" has different implications from "MBTA subway"; and that Wiki as a matter of policy frowns on circular citations. Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bingo - that capitalization subtlety is very important. It's very easy to invent capitalized phrases that look official but in fact are anything but. As for the other argument: the use of "the T" was created by the state government in 1964 as an intentional measure to differentiate the entire new agency from the MTA. It was a deliberate attempt to apply a common branding to the entire transportation system (including the commuter rail routes (which the MBTA was specifically founded to subsidize) and the suburban bus routes). Referring to just the rapid transit system as "the T" has always been a habit of lazy newspaper writers and uninformed suburbanites (including, unfortunately, the occasional MBTA employee); Wikipedia is not the place to make incorrect colloquialisms sound correct. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you that as a Bostonian who lives in Boston and rides the T daily, that the subway system is very infrequently referred to as "Rapid transit" or "the subway" by locals. Forget pinpointing this to lazy newspapers or suburbanites, but a Bostonian calls this subway system "the T". When they say "the T" they do not refer to buses, they do not refer to the commuter rail, nor do they refer to the state agency. Yes, as I've stated earlier, the circle T and using "the T" is also a moniker for the entire agency, but, for better or worse, it is also the most accurate name for the subway. You will all have to get over the fact that this is unofficial because in plenty of instances (to create a clear, well-informed Wiki) an article will include in the first sentence the official name along with the colloquial (or actual) name. Tylr00 ([[User

talk:Tylr00|talk]]) 16:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think you are not talking (metaphorically, of course) to other Bostonians? Anmccaff (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but it is also the vernacular in Boston and worth noting. Pick up any tourists' guidebook and it will tell them to travel around town via "Boston's subway - the T". I agree that the article should follow a factual basis for referring to its subject, and to write "MBTA Rapid Transit (commonly referred to as "the T")" would not be an unacceptable way to begin the article.Tylr00 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be an entirely unacceptable opening, with two incorrect neologisms. Quit pushing your rubbish. It is not wanted here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As we are on the talk page, I will push on indefinitely. From my perspective, Anmccaff and Pi.1415926535 are attempting to negate my argument by simply saying "That would not be acceptable" without further backup. This is because I am using an argument that has been defended across Wikipedia. Using the official printed name along with the colloquialism (which I have proven to you through word of mouth, print media (lazy journalists or not), tourists guidebooks, and even the MBTA's website, which titles the webpage for the subway as "MBTA Subway 'The T'", giving evidence to BOTH of my arguments for the official name and the vernacular). Basically, it is simply wrong to exclude 'The T' from the Wiki given its strong historic correlation. Please tell me how any of these facts are not relevant to this page and notable in the subject's name Tylr00 (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no contemporaneous cites for this explanation of the color scheme.

The folklore explaining the color scheme is now widespread, but there is no early indication of it, and there should be, if it were real. There is also some direct contravention of it; Cambridge7 explicitly noted that they preferred to start with the primary colors, and only switched away from yellow to orange when it proved unworkable in signage. Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to note that the explanations didn't appear at the time; I think that's a reasonable compromise between the mismatch between older and newer sources. If you're able to find any source for history of the paint schemes (I can probably dig up a source for the impetus of the 'Grey Ghost' paint, but I'm not sure about the later repainting), or an explanation of why the bus rollsigns were never recolored, I'd be much obliged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere I've got some early stuff from Cambridge7. Dunno where exactly, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"The T"

I want to open up the discussion to adding a line to the lead paragraph where we say that the system is also commonly referred to as "the T". I find that in media, word of mouth, and even station signage that the informal but colloquial name "the T" refers to the subway. For example, T stations are typically subway stations, although the T sign is found on commuter rail stations those are infrequently referred to as "T stations". Moreover, the T emblem doesn't appear on bus stops, nor on this map published by the MBTA, which shows subway stations and lines denoted with circle Ts while bus stops with dots or numbers, further illustrating the "everyday" link between "the T" and the subway.

Additionally, when navigating around mbta.com, the pagenames go from "MBTA Official Website" on generic pages to "MBTA Subway 'The T'" when one clicks on a subway-specific page (See: [1]).

Obviously, this issue is contentious, as some may argue that "the T" and its logo refer to the system as a whole, but I do think it is worth nothing on this page that this system (the subway) is commonly referred to by name as "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Followup: Two lines from the article Transportation_in_Boston:

• "Today, Bostonians call their rapid transit network "the T","
• "Boston has two discrete rail networks. One of these, the MBTA, widely nicknamed "the T", includes elements of light rail/streetcar operation as well as traditional subway technology."

Tylr00 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, note that it's definition of what the MBTA is is different from what this article uses...and, as an aside, quite likely wrong. Some aspects appear to be a result of imposing a view more consistent with a nationalized rail system. Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In gathering sources for citations, we never rely solely on the primary source, but on a collection of data that illustrates the reality of a situation. As such, it cannot be ignored that "the T" is a common nickname/colloquialism for this (as previously mentioned by others) nameless entity. Tylr00 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership== Adding note to first paragraph ==

Based on discussions on this talk page, we have established that the subway system is often referred to as "the T", despite having ambiguity with the system as a whole. Regardless of the correctness of this nomenclature, per WP:UEIA: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known."

As such, I believe the following to be neutral:

Although largely an identity of the MBTA, "the T" is often used to refer to the subway system by locals, news sites and guidebooks , and the MBTA itself.

There is a difference between "I have repeated" and "we have established." Bostonians sometimes use "the T" for the subway, sometimes for heavy rapid transit, sometimes for all steel-wheeled rapid transit, and sometimes for the system as a whole. Depends on the particular Bostonian, and the particular conversation. Hell, some people still talked about "Mr. BERy" into the '70s. Anmccaff (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Note that the Globe article is about the Green Line...on the surface...which the other Wiki article you cited does not consider part of the "MBTA Subway/the T." Anmccaff (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

PPS: What I personally would be comfortable adding to the lead would be something like "sometimes informally (and ambiguously) called "the T", with further explanation and cites in notes, so as not to clutter the lede. Anmccaff (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine with me. Is this something that we can come to a consensus on? I agree completely with your (pl) points surrounding this issue, but I find that in the interest of keeping things clean and as accurate as possible, this would be an appropriate way to approach it Tylr00 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Updated schematic map available on MBTA website

The official MBTA website has a more modern and updated schematic map, which includes changes to the Silver Line that are not reflected in the schematic map currently on this page. The updated map can be seen here: https://www.mbta.com/schedules/subway I'm unfortunately not very well-versed on determining the copyright status of an image; I assume that it would fall under public domain, since it's from a state-funded entity and doesn't appear to have any explicit copyright info, however would anyone who is a bit more knowledgeable on this topic be able to verify this? Thanks in advance. VSatire (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The MBTA does claim copyright on that map (see bottom left). Copyright from public agencies is complicated. All works by federal agencies are public domain, but most state and local government works are not. (California is a notable exception.) Massachusetts is even more complicated - state agency works are probably public domain, but that's not based on a law or court ruling so it's unknown how accurate that is. And this specific map is even more complicated, because it's not clear what if any copyright was retained by the original author when the MBTA selected and modified the design. So long story short, I have chosen not to upload that map myself. The ideal would be an unquestionably free map created by a Commons user; I may get around to that someday. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Number of stations

The article says there are 133 stations. But clicking on the linked "List of MBTA subway stations" article says there are 149. From my count, there are 114 subway-only stations, 7 on the Mattapan line, and 28 Silver Line-only. So I'm not sure where that 133 number is coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamnya (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

---

MBTA subway → MBTA rapid transit – MBTA uses the terms "rapid transit" and "subway" interchangeably. In the United States, the term subway implies a heavy rail train operating mostly underground, while rapid transit implies any type of transit (heavy rail, light rail, and BRT) that has treatment to make its movement more rapid. Outside of the US, the terms seem to be largely interchangeable. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The MBTA uses "Subway", as do secondary sources [2]. If anything, the common name is "the T", although that name is also used for the MBTA itself and would not improve clarity. 162 etc. (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Meh: the MBTA is frustratingly inconsistent. Schedules page and rider guide say "subway"; map and timetable say "rapid transit". "Subway" seems somewhat more common in secondary sources. It's worth noting that of the three other "subway" systems in the US, the New York City Subway is 40% aboveground, while the SEPTA subway–surface trolley lines and Newark City Subway are light rail systems with mostly surface mileage. I don't think this move would be a horrible negative, but it doesn't seem necessary or a net positive, given that it's based primarily on a minor semantic difference. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Support 'MBTA subway' and 'MBTA rapid transit' are both descriptive names, not official or branded names, and as a matter of fact this article describes trolley lines and bus rapid transit lines which form part of a network rather than just a subway line. If this were an article for the MBTA Subway that would be a different discussion, but it is an article about rapid transit (improper noun). The inclusion of BRT alongside the subway in MBTA documents seems to be variable. Baltimore Metro SubwayLink is a subway line with mostly surface mileage, but it is one continuous line with an above-ground portion and an official name (and still functionally a subway when considered where the core of the system lies, a lot of that above ground length is to reach a single suburban park and ride that is quite remote from Baltimore). Likewise, Portland has a light rail system despite it containing the deepest underground station in the country. With the other systems in the US which are called subways but are not exclusively subways, there is a clear reason for doing so. Middle river exports (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Support - not because of not enough of it being underground. The reason is that the subject of this article includes the Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line, the Green Line and the Silver Line - none of which are subway lines. Animal lover 666 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Green Line was the first subway in America. When did it get demoted?--agr (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's technically light rail but the difference is meaningless in this context. -- Vaulter 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - for both historic and common name reasons. Boston is credited with having the first US subway. At that time the underground tunnel only represented a portion of the street car routes that used it, so the term subway never meant that most of the lines were underground. The term rapid transit doesn't fit perfectly with this article's subject either. Parts of the Green Line share city streets with cars as does most of the Silver Line, nor does most of the later qualify as Bus Rapid Transit by world standards. Nor does rapid transit clearly exclude commuter rail, particularly the Providence Line, which has exclusive right of way and electric overhead lines (which the MBTA is thinking of using). As for WP:COMMONNAME, no one in the Boston area would say "I'm taking the rapid transit into town." Most people here understand the MBTA as having three main systems: subway, bus and commuter rail (and maybe some know it also runs ferries and The Ride). See the MBTA web site mbta.com which clearly lists its modes of transit this way. That alone should settle the question.--agr (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that the Silver Line is not even a Bus Rapid Transit line does seem pertinent. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to leave the Silver Line out of this article and focus it on the subway lines? --Middle river exports (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no indication that "rapid transit" is the common name in this instance. The hairsplitting about above-ground vs under-ground length is original research. -- Vaulter 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The Silver Line is certainly not a subway, and both the Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line and the Green Line are not generally considered subway lines. Animal lover 666 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.