Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car)

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Mid-importance).

See discussion at: Category talk:New York City Subway passenger equipment

Edit war on page.

Hi, I linked over here from AN/I. It seems that both sides have some interesting information here, but are arguing about which set to present. One thing I notice in the history is that User:M12592 seems to feel a sense of ownership about the page, as per this edit summary [1]. Calling other editors 'intruders' is a definite instance of incivility. Please recognize that all editors want to present information here. The other major concern I have is that this edit warring has resulted in cutting out parts of sentences, making the page incoherent. Is it possible for both sides to ADD their information to the talk page in differing sections, and see if it can be synthesized into one, stronger, longer article? I will post notes to all recent editors. ThuranX 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) The first step towards this resolution, as I see it, si that the history section is contested. Can we get someone to commit to taking on the citations for supporting, or disproving, the history section? After that, a set of items each side wants included might need listing, then individual review (that is, item by item review, not one person review.) Thanks, all. ThuranX 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to stop, User:M12592 is basically the same users: User:D12795 and User:DCarltonsm <--in which, currently blocked, Also the constant IP users who are sockpuppets of User:DCarltonsm. This person keeps clamming about the History (some parts are true) and Future Planned sections where he wrote is NOT TRUE, he did not provided his sources/back of his proof since September of 2006, See the article history page for details. I am amazed that this person keeps vandalizing non-stop.
I suggest restore the page back to this and get a full protected tag on this article. I don't see this issue would go away soon. --BWCNY 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you believe these three users are the same and engaging in block evasion, report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. This goes for the IP users too.
2. All Wikipedia content must be verifiable. Content without proper citations may be removed at any time. For most articles, content generally accepted as true is allowed to remain without citations, but if a statement is disputed, it must be removed until a cite is found, not kept indefinitely pending a citation.
3. There is no policy which supports a blanket ban on non-admins from editing an article other than full protection, which is generally only used for severe editing disputes. I don't think we're at that point yet.
Hope that helps. —Dgies^t c 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, there are two options, then. We can go to the sockpuppet resolutions, or if you can provide discrediting sources, then protecting it, or at least proceeding to the 'next level' of options will be much easier, because admins will have the demonstrated proofs needed to say 'yes, you ARE adding falsehoods, as per these three or four sources which discredit you. Further, if the information is, in fact, correct, then we can add it in a cited fashion and make the page better. I do understand that cleaning up other people's edits is less fun than adding your own information, but really ,that's already what much of WIkipedia is, building on others' works. I see nothing wrong with cooperating to make the page better, or at least build up a body of evidence to thoroughly refute the edits. the same set of actions has two outcomes, and those outcomes determine our future actions in resolving this. I'd prefer the citation and source method, because that precludes seeing the problem repeat later, or if the editor returns with another IP. ThuranX 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to find "discrediting sources" to remove something disputed. You remove something disputed if it doesn't have supporting sources. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability if you are unclear on this. Also, you don't call in admins to decide what is "truth" and then ask them to protect the "right version". Admins are only used to protect a page for a "cool off" period, or temporarily block users for civility violations or willfully violating community consensus. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —Dgies^t c 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that nothing on this page is cited. Could I blank it, at least if I doubt its truth? --NE2 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be productive. Remember: WP:POINT. If there are specific statements/paragraphs you have a problem with, list them here, that way you can either build a consensus to keep or delete, or find citations. Just deleting content flat-out will spark a revert war. Build consensus on a particular position, then if someone keeps reverting, you can take it to WP:AIV. —Dgies^t c 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dgies, this article wound up on AN/I for a reason. Nothing in the non-history-having version is cited either. Should we delete all that as well? Obviously not, beyond the [WP:POINT]] reasons. Should we add the citation needed tag all over like it falls from a pepper shaker? Also a poor solution. Instead I suggested you work together. Since that's clearly not something you're interested in doing, why don't you step back from this, and let other regular editors try to work on this?

I'm well aware of verifiability and wikipedia's policies on it. I'm also aware that this is a ridiculous content dispute that comes down to 'should this article have a history section, and are the facts in the proposed history section correct? To take the attitude that keeps happening here 'I can delete anything I don't like if it's uncited' is disruptive, which is also NOT a good attitude. It's ironic that you say exactly what I've said before about building consensus to someone else, but get hostile to me. 'Building consensus' doesn't mean getting your way. I actuall think having an accurate history section would help the page. The qeustion before the regular editors, beyond the 'work on it or enjoy a revert war', is how do we approach it? The easiest answer is sit down for 20 minutes, find a few online cites, add them, problem finished. Please consider taking this on, instead of arguing that removal's a better solution than teamwork. ThuranX 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm not a regular contributer to this article. And I don't care about its content very much. I was just trying to explain some relevant policy on content disputes and verifiability. If you don't want me here I'll butt out. —Dgies^t c 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a "sectionrewrite" tag on the history section in the article. It needs a cleanup. BWCNY 05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with New York Times archive access can probably do something with these results. [2] is currently not loading or I'd link to a results page there too. --NE2 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0964576503 should also be a good source, assuming [3] is a reputable publisher. (They should be, since the MTA references that book in [4].) --NE2 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although massive page protections (semi/full), vandals still get by, and it gets out of hand. Back during mid-summer is when this catastrophe started, IPs and the now-blocked DCarltonsm@msn.com didn't vandalize this page alone, but also some of the subway service articles and the other car assignments. They refused to provide sources, when there obviously weren't any, and we continuously reverted them. We called this the September 9 Fiasco because they kept saying that these changes would take effect on September 9. When that day came, the vandalism ceased, because there were no such changes. Then, I spoke to soon, the vandalized a few of the pages again providing a different date. After a while, it stopped, until recently, with the return of the sockpuppet DCarltonsm. That is pretty much the story of the subway vandals.

Despite massive reverts of unsourced information, most of the articles on rolling stock are unsourced to begin with. Unlike subway services, the MTA doesn't announce daily assignments to subway cars, as this is the same as announcing daily service disruptions. It's possible that the articles are incorrect to begin with. Many of the rolling stock articles cannot be verified. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I tried repeatedly to engage the editor in discussion. failing that, I investigated his contribution history, which led me to file a sockpuppet report, which has since been borne out, nad the editor, and numerous socks, are now banned. This may not fix the page forever, but it should make delaing with this stuff easier. That said, I would be fo the betterment of this page to work out a proper History section, with citations. Reliance on the 'If you add it, you cite it' excuse got this mess going, as I've stated. A little effort from involved editors could avoid this entire mess. Use the cites I found at the bottom. Find more. But fix this so that it doesn't keep happening, and all involved will be happier. ThuranX 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Not all meet WP:RS, but may be good for backgrounds and jumping points for clearer research, the first, while thoroughly outside WP:RS, is a good first person account of rail history for at least the period in question:

http://members.aol.com/bdmnqr2/carhistory.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_6_205/ai_n6134826

http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/history-nycta1980s.html

That's three articles in about 10 minutes, not counting the sidetracking i got on about the Shimabara rebellion from this article, [5], which highlights the need for citation, because peopel are watching. ThuranX 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Dor, Ying Dor 2, and the CarltonMSN problem

Are Ying Dor and Ying Dor 2 socks of Carlton? If not both, is one an illegal impersonator of the other? waht's the deal. Should a a Checkuser be filed? ThuranX 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th 75-foot subway car (R179) is coming up according to 2008-2013 MTA Capital Program Document

This article says "Because 75-foot subway cars take time to load and unload passengers and cannot fit into the entire B-Division lines, more recent orders returned to 60-foot subway car.". HOWEVER, according to the 2008-2013 MTA Capital Program, the fifth 75-foot subway car (R179, according to the document) order is proposed, meaning that the quote above could be false! They are intended to replace R44 (75-foot). However, this is a proposal, no one knows if it will be ordered or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takuma Ishizeki (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

People need to stop undoing, there are facts on subchat with R160s all on the Q and R68/As back on the N.--IGeMiNix (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SubChat is a message board. Please use Reliable Sources. Thanks. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Acps110. Non-official sites, forums, statements from railfans or transit workers, and amateur photographs and videos are NOT acceptable to use on Wikipedia. IGeMiNix may need to be blocked. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R68s on N

As a rule, we have taken to using the Datta/Man datasheet for this site. The assignments on the JoeKorNer, while the actual assignments, are not necessarily what is actually occurring. Because of the often great difference between the reality and the official assignments, we have been using the previously mentioned Datta/Man datasheet. The official roster goes into substantially more detail than is true as trains must, for federal purposes, be assigned to a line. That said, Does the N's fleet consist only of Siemens R160Bs and R68As? No. Alstom R160As and R160Bs with Alstom propulsion run on the N all the time. In reality, when trains are sent out for an N/Q, nobody cares if it is an R160A, R160B1 or R160B2. In reality nobody cares if it is an R68 or R68A when they are preparing trains in the morning for the B/N. Because of the looseness of these assignments we have historically used the Datta/Man datasheet. 96.232.72.179 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is R68s and R68As are not treated as one fleet. There are not the same cars and therefore, cannot operate together on one train, unlike the R160As and R160Bs. There is no need to worry about where the R160s goes since they can operate together, but R68/68As have to be put into special consideration, just like in July 2001 when the W was introduced. It took all the R68As at Coney Island while the Q local was only R68s. The JoeKorner datasheet is more reliable than the Datta/Man one because the latter is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo from railfans and car assignments as not as loose as you might think, like the recent swap at Jamaica Yard that made the F exclusively R160s and the R exclusively R46s. There has been no sightings of R68s on the N, just R68As since the recent car assignment change took effect. The N still uses mostly R160s. 69.117.185.58 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R68s on the G

To all railfans, please stop adding to this article that the R68s are running on the G. Although this seems to be the case based on the numerous photos and videos posted on sites like NYC Transit Forums, Subchat, and YouTube, we have a strict policy where we use the MTA's official line-by-line assignment roster, posted on TheJoeKorner.com, to say which cars run on which services. Amateur pictures, videos, or statements from railfans or MTA workers are not legitimate enough to include on this site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a railfan site or service guide. There will always be some exceptions from the JoeKorner datasheet, like R160As running on the N when it is only assigned R160Bs. The transferring of the G to the Coney Island Yard is still underway, so while R68s are running on that line, they are not officially assigned to it, thus we cannot include this on the article. The JoeKorner datasheet is scheduled to be updated on June 25, hopefully to show the new assignments of R68s on the G, the N becoming exclusively R160s like the Q, and the R entirely R46s. When that happens, we can edit the articles based on the new assignments. Until then, have some patience and stops saying that R68s run on the G. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First of all, there are R68s on the G, but its not regular. Second of all, that site you gave us is not a reliable source. The bottom of the page says that the page was last edited on December 15, 2010. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on R68 (New York City Subway car). 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) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEPSA LED lights, door chimes and PA Systems for R68s???

Can somebody check this or provide some sources?

"LED lights, door chimes (similar to those on the R142, R142A, and R179), and PA systems from SEPSA [it] (Italian: Società per l'Esercizio di Pubblici Servizi Anonima; an Italian railroad company) were tested on 2892–2895"

I find it very unlikely that SEPSA provided that equipment for the R68 for two main reasons:

- SEPSA never manufactured anything, nor never had any manufacturing capabilities either.

- SEPSA has been effectively defunct since 2012, when it was absorbed into EAV.

SEPSA was a small regional railway company (comparable to a "beefed-up" interurban) serving the western outskirts of Naples. It had been in a quite dire financial situation since practically the early '2000s, with decaying rolling stock and infrastructure (a situation comparable, and maybe even worse than Penn Central!). There's no way they could've manufactured, let alone provided, that equipment.

Socimi (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]