User talk:NE2/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:NE2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
8th Avenue Line and the "A Train" song
Thanks for your correction!
BRT rapid transit operations
Short answer for the post-1907 rapid transit era is the BRT lines operated as leaseholds. There was no issue of trackage rights (unless we're talking about oddities like the Brighton to Manhattan Beach). Who was the technical operator of lines until the BMT organized in 1923 usually came into play only in legal matters; it's not as through a Brooklyn Union Elevated crew got off at Ninth Avenue and a Nassau Electric crew got on a West End elevated train there.
Leaseholds also count when the sh*t hits the fan, as when the BCRR reclaimed its surface lines in 1919. Sometimes it was like separating the individual strands in a bowl of spaghetti, but others times it was more akin to trying to figure out which wheat sheaves a particular strand of spaghetti came from.
So the leaseholds did matter, but not in a day-to-day operating sense.
FYI, the Sea Beach Ry. Canarsie Railroad and BUERR were merged into the NYCRR in 1912. -- Cecropia 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The pieces of information you're picking up are OK so far as they go, but the bouncing around of leases for fare and transfer purposes does not necessarily mean that lines were actually independently operated. The BRT subsidiaries were forever trying to avoid onerous regulatory requirements, the largest ongoing issue of which were the Coney Island fare disputes. Whenever a company ran into a regulatory road block, it was apt to go to an orginal franchise or even threaten the restoration of steam service in order to get what it wanted. -- Cecropia 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Without delving too deeply into my files, I can recall no direct change in rapid transit routings as a result of the lease cancellations and shufflings of 1904. Basically, these leases went from one BRT subsidiary to another. In the general time we are taling about (I'm being purposely vague on exact dates because I haven't the time or inclintion at the moment to dig out details) the lines you mentioned ran like this:
- West End elevated from Park Row via 5th Avenue el to West End Terminal, Coney Island.
- Sea Beach elevated trains from Park Row via 5th Avenue el and West End Line to Bath Jct., the Sea Beach to Coney Island.
- Sea Beach-65th Street Line trolleys from Bay Ridge el terminal to Coney Island.
- Culver Line at various points was a regular circus: Culver elevated trains from Park Row to Culver Depot; Various Culver trolleys from many Brooklyn points to Culver Depot; LIRR steam trains used parts of the Culver Line at different times.
- BTW, the original Culver Line (from Greenwood (9th Avenue and 20th Street) to Coney Island had trolleys until 1956. -- Cecropia 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I'm thinking more about the internal workings; sorry if you don't know about them. When the Public Service Commission says that the West End trains were operated by the Nassau Electric south of 36th Street, what does that mean, and how was it different from the Sea Beach operations via trackage rights? --NE2 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It means that when the train passed from BUERR trackage to NE trackage, it technically became a Nassau Electric train, operating under the rules and franchises of the Nassau Electric. On a trackage rights arrangement the train would technically remain whatever it was, but use the tracks of the other road by agreement. -- Cecropia 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean that the workers on those trains were technically employed by both companies? --NE2 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That depends on the way the leases were written, but the chances are that the employees' checks said "Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company" on them, but that the company accountants sorted out what parts of their salaries were paid by which company. This sort of accounting was not uncommon of railroads. Until the commuter tax was eliminated in New York City, LIRR operating employees had a portion of their salary go to the NYC non-resident tax, based on how much of their runs were within the City Limits.
- If you've ever seen a pre-1929 Brooklyn streetcar transfer, you will see that the transfer may say "Brooklyn Rapid Transit" on it but, in small type there is a code such as "N.E.R.R." or "C.I.B." to indicate the legal road issuing the transfer. Any given conductor might carry a couple of transfer books in his pocket, bringing out the correct one depending on what part of the route he was on.
- When a company comes to financial grief, one of the leased companies may suddenly come to life again. Brooklyn City Railroad emerging from the bankrupt BRT is a good example. Another example is the Providence & Worcester Railroad. All but forgotten as part of the NYNH&H and then Penn Central, it broke away and resumed operations when PC went belly up. -- Cecropia 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean that the workers on those trains were technically employed by both companies? --NE2 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It means that when the train passed from BUERR trackage to NE trackage, it technically became a Nassau Electric train, operating under the rules and franchises of the Nassau Electric. On a trackage rights arrangement the train would technically remain whatever it was, but use the tracks of the other road by agreement. -- Cecropia 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I'm thinking more about the internal workings; sorry if you don't know about them. When the Public Service Commission says that the West End trains were operated by the Nassau Electric south of 36th Street, what does that mean, and how was it different from the Sea Beach operations via trackage rights? --NE2 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the original Culver Line (from Greenwood (9th Avenue and 20th Street) to Coney Island had trolleys until 1956. -- Cecropia 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey
Hey what's up, i noticed something strange about what you said that pahighways.com is a personal site. Well take a good look for your self at the bottom of the page where it cites information from Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, AAA, and other cites. You were wrong about the website it is a reliable reference why do you think every pa route article uses it. But respond at my talk page becuase if what i've found out is true, then is PA 65 a good article? -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- So it's impossible to make a PA Highway a featured article since that's their only source. No way is their a book about routes in the library i even asked 7 people and they saide "no". So if this site can't help me than nothing can. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the history, right? its the only section that needs references not pertaining to pahighways.com. What about DeLorme since i can't use pahighways for the length ref can i use Delorme Street Atlas USA 2007 for the milage in the table as wel;?? -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That solves the length problem what about the table and exit list? it needs the mile for every intersection. Can i use DeLorme for that? -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
PS:I'm not really using this information that your telling me for PA 65 since it made my head hurt. I'm using it for PA 145. Check out how it looks and i'm still working with references on the history. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
PA 145
- Hey, could you do me a big favor and take a good look at Pennsylvania Route 145. I have to get the opinion of good reviewer like your self. What happened with PA Route 65 i don't want it to happen with the PA 145 article. Anything wrong like references, or style of writing, or missing something.. anything please tell me, thank you. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at this map and several other maps. ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Lehigh_1941.pdf -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the history and added a new reference. But i still need more info on the history. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 25:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please say what you have to say about PA 145, i hope it's good comments becuase i worked extremly hard on this article 5x harder than PA 65. If you say something negative, I'll go crazy and say to myself wikipedia is harder than college. Check out how it looks on Thursday. -- JohnnyAlbert10 1:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for taking care of SEPTA Route 125. I just came across it while looking through a new user's contributions, and not being really in on the public transportation side of things on Wikipedia, I wasn't sure what the correct course of action was. I agree wholeheartedly with the redirect. -- NORTH talk 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1 (New York City Subway service) unreferenced?
What do you mean that the article is unreferenced? Its route line is indicated and referenced here. The published timetable serves as a reference "here" (PDF). (209 KiB). Its service history, as well as others, are referenced here. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bug this guy about where the info comes from. However, it can be implemented that this site can count as a secondary source, the same as nycsubway.org and Station Reporter, which are all allowed. Yes, I did read on WP:RS. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then why do they show up as references on almost every page within the subway scope (not counting talk pages and such)? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- They count as secondary sources. They get their info from other places. Ask them where they get it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying don't always go on overkill with sources. You've kinda gone overkill with it for a while. But we should rely on WP:IAR so we don't have to stick with one thing alone that people constantly waste time on every day. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "I lost"? There is no contest here. What we're discussing are sources, and we shouldn't get off topic. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- All of this stuff on sources on the namespace are an uphill battle.... I feel like many editors worry on attribution because it gives them something to do. Stupid things like this make me want to give up on Wikipedia. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Washington Heights
There should be a comma or "and" between A C. They are two seperate services, not one. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Free Transfer
First of all, I would like to let you know that CanadaGirl and I are the same person, this is simply a role account for things such as fixes in the category namespace (edits that don't hold much quality in an edit count).
I originally added that link to my ToDo list when this revision was the current one. My intent was to split out the two meanings (which has been done already by someone else), and expand the transit related half. I have been meaning to clean up my ToDo list for some time (more than just that entry), but I've been busy with my category work. CG janitor 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Review
Hey NE2, since you do Ga reviews and your a roads person could you please review Pennsylvania Route 145 and pass or fail it to become a good article, thank you. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 0:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion in the AFDs for List of unused highways, one of the items that needed improving upon are sources. Seeing as how the page is getting flooded with various unreferenced items, do you think a culling of unreferenced materials (or commenting out) would work? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm probably going to go through and comment the ones without facts. It's getting just pathetic when people keep adding more and more stubs (when a few aren't!) with no citations. Perhaps I can redo the template at the top and put a bright red border for emphasis :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Edits
i noticed you removed a lot of info, claiming it to be copied from another page. i disagree with you and want an explanation for the removement. is it considered copyright info? you can talk to this on the NYCS discussion page. The Legendary Ranger 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you think of way we can get that information and reword it so it won't look copyrighted? the information is very vital for the article. The Legendary Ranger 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Seek consensus please.
NE2, I've noticed you've made a lot of drastic edits to many articles and templates that a lot of people worked on. Instead you go ahead and make the change anyway. I've already had this discussion with you. When you make a proposal, or make a drastic edit to the namespace articles and templates, you need to get some sort of approval from the rest of the community, like us at WT:NYCPT. Allow up to at least a day to try to see what other people have to say about your ideas. And as you may see at Template:NYCS and Template:Infobox NYCS, I've reverted most of your edits back to their original versions, so everything is back to the way it is, except that your own credibility has been damaged.
I hope that you take this notice seriously, as we have already had this discussion before, there should be no real reason that we should have it again. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, can you please try to see what other people have to say? They might disapprove of it later on, if not now. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to present any ideas, bring them up on te project page. It's more considerate and everyone can have their opinions as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles says to avoid boldface, but that doesn't mean we can't. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a reason why we should boldface, according to a past discussion about NYCS templates in August.
- The adopted standard of the project is that services are always referred to in bold, such as Q, not plain Q. The use of these templates ensures that this standard is followed. If the standard is changed in the future, as it well may be e.g., to
, the change would be trivial to implement. I also say this because you removed a lot of templates and replaced them with redirects, which I find unnecessary. Here's more.
- The adopted standard of the project is that services are always referred to in bold, such as Q, not plain Q. The use of these templates ensures that this standard is followed. If the standard is changed in the future, as it well may be e.g., to
- Should the service articles be split, the change can be implemented easily. This has happened twice recently, when F-V and A-C were split into separate articles. Those references that used the templates were fixed in minutes. Those that were hard-coded took hours.
- They are an immense labor-saving device. It is easier to type {{
NYCS|Q}} (10 characters) than [[Q (New York City Subway service)|Q]] (44 characters). - They make editing much easier. In articles that refer to many different subway services, that 44-character furball is awkward to read and manipulate — bearing in mind that they are lexically equivalent to just a single character. I would add that the use of these templates in articles not maintained by the NYC Subway project suggests that other editors have quickly caught on to this very simple standard.
- They make it easy to find all references to the service, should a mass change be required. Due to the hassle of typing or cutting-pasting the aforementioned 44-character furball, if the templates did not exist, lots of editors would be tempted just to type Q. Given the many hundreds of subway articles, there would be no chance of easily finding every use of the bare letter Q. Hope this helps, --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where did that come from? No one discussed that the J and Z would be split. There should be no reason to split it anyway. They are the same two services, the Z is a skip-stop clone variant of the J. And why do you want to use redirects? We have the templates for a reason. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- If possible, we can modify Template:NYCS to have a ParserFunctions switch method. I'll do this. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- A list of service links can be found in Template:New York City Subway. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll work on the switch. For now, just don't insert redirects to replace templates, as you've already did, which I will now start the slow, steady process of reverting now. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't make controversial edits without seeking consensus. Thank YOU very much. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
RFC has been iniated
NE2, it is about time that you learn on how we work on Wikipedia. Your consensus-breaching and talk page habits will no longer be accepted. I have opened up an RFC for you, hoping that you will learn on how we work on Wikipedia. I ask that you look into the RFC for the remainder of the week. I hope you will learn about working with others with comments left on the page. Thank you. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 4
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Move warning
Regarding Astoria Boulevard–Hoyt Avenue (BMT Astoria Line), I predict that you will get a rebuke by Imdanumber1, becuase he strongly pushed for article title names based on The Map. The subway map and [1] does say "Astoria Boulevard." Similar warning if you plan to do 39th Avenue–Beebe Avenue (BMT Astoria Line) as an example. Just a word of warning. Tinlinkin 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was not part of the discussion on station naming. Therefore you better ask for suggestions from other people. I would go with the name most people would see. That could arguably be Astoria Boulevard from The Map or online info, or Astoria Boulevard-Hoyt Avenue if you go to the station itself or pass by it. For the Flushing line stations on Queens Boulevard, I know the secondary name is of the same size as the primary and I remember there was a controversy over their removal. Those station names at present look OK to me. Other than this, it's better to discuss with a wider audience. Tinlinkin 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Access icon
The International Symbol of Access (ISA) should be used in the {{access icon}} template in place of a free symbol because it is an international standard and is allowed to be used according to its standards by the International Organization for Standardization. A free symbol should NOT be used because any alternations of the ISA may cause offense to handicapped or disabled persons, according to someone who works with such individuals. The ISA is copyrighted, however, the copyright is to protect its design for style, shape, and proportion – NOT to hinder its use. Its purpose is to be used "to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and usable by all those persons whose mobility is restricted."[2] Therefore, the usage to mark a transit facility as accessible its permitted within its guidelines. Many places, for example, Ontario, require the usage of the ISA to denote accessibility:
- "If accessible facilities are to be identified, then the international symbol of access shall be used. If facilities / services are designed to be universally accessible, then this sign is required. The official symbol indicates to persons with disabilities that they will have reasonable freedom of movement within the building to which it is attached." (OBC A-3.7.3.1)
–Crashintome4196 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
RE:Autoformatter
I fixed it. Regards, -- Darkest Hour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Oiled road, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.104.18 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
List of NYCS stations
Wow. You didn't have to, but since you took upon the hard task of reorganizing List of New York City Subway stations yourself, I congratulate you. You certainly made it easier and manageable when you created {{NYCS row}}. You also figured out the biggest implementation issue in my view: correct alphanumeric sorting of station names and consistent station naming (by street name). I would only suggest two things:
- to make the station name the default sorting key, which I suppose you would get to anyway as part of cleanup, and...
- include time periods. When I looked at 59th-Columbus Circle with 1 and 2 without any notes, I found it shocking until I remembered the 2 operates there at night only. I think without the time periods, the services will appear misleading.
Other than that, great job! Tinlinkin 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Trolley/Tram
Ah, sorry about that—I'm doing a search and replace and trying to make sure that I don't accidentally change any of the trolleybus links. Guess I missed that one; thanks for the catch. --Spangineerws (háblame) 06:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
International wheelchair symbol discussion
A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
NY Times article request
I noticed your request at the Newspaper/maganize request page. If you haven't received this yet, I can send you a pdf of the article by email in the next hour or so. --Polaron | Talk 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Snidely
He shows up in this Yahoo search:
Snidely Whiplash. The one you see on the Wiki article is a more modern image of him but one that compliments all the incarnations to include human movies. Ronbo76 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- He shows up as two different entries. I am willing to go with the flow, but he has been on this article since I put it on Watch back in February. I used to watch him (and still do the cartoons. Ronbo76 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that. I have been doing searches. I am on dial-up so my searches/replies/reverts/answers are slow. This is one of the more modern incarnations of SW. Looking at all the pictures you can see the progression from the 1969 cartoon to the movie. Recommend we stay on the talkpage so I only have to keep one window open. Ronbo76 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
The summary says it is from 1911. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but how could not be published before 1923? John Reaves (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- And what does that have to do with publishing? John Reaves (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can we not assume good faith in the uploader? What exactly are saying is the difference between publishing and producing? John Reaves (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see, would you be willing to contact the uploader and see what they know? John Reaves (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and delete and if he can find out when the author died, I'll restore. John Reaves (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see, would you be willing to contact the uploader and see what they know? John Reaves (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can we not assume good faith in the uploader? What exactly are saying is the difference between publishing and producing? John Reaves (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS
Has consensus been reached to not revert the template back to bold? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are looking at subway line information. Go to the published timetable. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The line information is just as worse. There is no date as to when it is current as of. Published timetables say the day they whey are accurate as of the date they are published. Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park, as indicated on the schedules is a better name than Grand Army Plaza, as indicated on the Map due to space limitations on the map. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The MTA is a very discombobulated organization. I choose not to question them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation? Although it is currently a two-way discussion, it is a discussion that can have a great consequence on the WikiProject. Tinlinkin 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
About Baltimore MTA bus lines pages
To NE2 from Sebwite:
For the past several months, I, with the help from a few others, have been working on a page dedicated to each bus line in the Baltimore area, something I have just recently completed. I do very much like your idea of having a page like you created called List of Maryland Transit Administration bus routes. In fact, I planned one day to create something like that myself. At the same time, I do believe there should be individual pages like the ones I made.
Please keep it up in finishing up the page you started. It is very helpful. And if you know something more, please add it there. But at the same time, please do not delete the pages I created. Instead, please link them to one another. The purpose of the pages I made is to provide a description of what each line currently is, what areas of town and major landmarks it serves for which it would draw its ridership (such as schools, hospitals, malls, or tourist attractions), a step-by-step history detailing to dates and descriptions of each change (which shows how the line was shaped), and any other interesting information about the routes, such as their impacts on the communties they serve or controversies surrounding changes they have undergone.
The idea of having a page devoted to each individual bus line in a transit system is not a new one here. I have seen in with the systems of other large cities, and I do believe it makes sense in a Metropolitan area with a population of 1 million one more.
Sebwite 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up response about No. 51 Line
As you mentioned, changes to lines should be major ones and not just small ones to serve new shopping centers. The project in which I have written about every bus line has been on-going. I am not trying to build Rome in one day. For some bus lines, I have been able to find quite a lot of publicly available information. For others, I have only been able to find minimal amounts, including some that have been around for a quite a long time, such as the No. 51 Line. Some of the lines date back to the 1890s as streetcars, and others have only been around less than a decade. Therefore, the amount that can be written about each line will vary. Whenever I can find information that I previously have been unable to find, I plan to add it.
And there are times that indeed, a routing change to serve a new shopping center does matter a lot. For example, the No. 17 Line was modified in 2001 to serve Arundel Mills. Its level of service was greatly increased at that time, with the addition of Sunday service and other off-peak service beyond BWI Airport. This was more than just a small deviation added.
Sebwite 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
But why not, when {{NYCS}} has made this template obsolete? I really do not see the subarticle being moved anytime soon. If that's the case, then at least reinstate the bullets between the letters/numbers and the inline spaces. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- They'll work; just use
which is an inlined space. Example: , then •, then hit the space bar. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
PNC
Thanks for jumping in to help at PNC. I have no objection to your edit. However, could you add a comment at the talk page in support of your position, so that it can be considered in the fine tuning that will inevitably take place. --Kevin Murray 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
42nd Street-Fifth Avenue-Bryant Park
Point me to the place where the discussion supported the split. Otherwise, I'll revert it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no exact comment that the articles should be split, so I will revert it, again. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're right I won't split it. Bring it up at WT:NYCPT and stop making drastic decisions like these on your own. Learn how consensus works, or you will never get along here. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- This name is used on official mini-maps of the MTA. Obtain one and see for yourself. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You do not know. You keep on making unilateral choices on your own. Look at this consensus flowchart to learn how consensus works. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- IT is the same reason your edits keep getting on reverted. Learn for once and work as a team, instead of making unilateral decisions not supported by the community. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You could post a comment at WT:NYCPT. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 5
   The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 5 | 5-8 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery, TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
redirects
I will be proposing all of them to RFD. It'll allow you to debate the issue, and you can't just remove an RFD. 70.51.8.244 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Non-rail rapid transit?
Looking at the articles currently tagged with {{WPRT}}, although the overwhelming majority of them are rail related subjects, there are notable exceptions. I added the nonrail parameter because articles like double-decker bus are not within the scope of TWP, but they are within WPRT. Articles in Category:Buses are the primary reason for this need, but there are likely other rapid transit related articles as well that are beyond the scope of TWP. This solution seemed simplest to keep them tagged for WPRT but not listed in the TWP assessment categories. Slambo (Speak) 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that question is better addressed to Badbilltucker (talk · contribs) who added the TWP banner to it on November 16, 2006. I've always thought of buses as a means of rapid transit, and I see them referred to as rapid transit frequently in newspapers and magazines. Slambo (Speak) 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Spaces in the line templates
Give me a good reason why there should not be a space. I have added them back until you can tell me. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the document page. Take a look at what happened to the 1 and the 9. Plus, they were together before 2005, now they aren't. Why should we have to rely on redirects as you keep on doing. Don't worry about the future. Worry about now. And now you are being really hardheaded, which is why a lot of people have a hard time dealing with you. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's quiet easy using AWB. Do you have that? If so, there shouldn't be a problem. Just list the transclusions, and click start. Is that a big deal? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the AWB manual. Plus, you can have it save for you if you use an auto-save feature found in it. I haven't used the program for a while though, but if and only if the J and the Z are to so-called split, my bot will jump back into action and find all those 50+ pages and fix them withing 5-10 minutes. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I never wanted to subst: NYCS 1 back in the day. However, Cydebot did, and it caused a lot of mayhem. And on redirects, don't just intentionally create redirects, like you did with a whole ton of service articles. It really causes a lot of confusion if the articles are to be moved. That is why we have templates. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well seeing as the {{NYCS}} has deprecated the others, and consensus has been reached, I am going to start to replace all of the templates again, as it has already gained approval from a past discussion (see December archives at WT:NYCPT) And have them deleted, as well as the redirects you created to prevent over linking or whatever you call it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do me a favor...
...and leave me alone. You have caused a lot of trouble for me for the past month and you are making things worse, and as much as I have tried to mediate with you, it doesn't help. You are completely hard-headed and never listen to anyone. So I won't listen to you. Just please back off until you can learn to work with others instead of being a total heartless unreasonable frustrating character. Until you start building up credibility by playing nice in the sandbox, then people will start taking your opinions and concerns more seriously. You aren't really helping others by trying to have things your way here. We don't work like that. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest that you become involved in mediation with Imdanumber1. I think there are some issues that could be better addressed by an uninvolved third party. alphachimp 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I've deleted the RfC (possibly a conflict of interest, but I'm acting against myself...I'll restore if that bothers you). Technically, you're right about ones left unsupported for >48h, although I signed at the last moment. The option has not been removed from the table, but at this point I feel it would be more productive to pursue other avenues. alphachimp 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Subway Car Edits
What is reliable source for what type of subway car a line uses? I don't think you should remove it yet. Just add [citation needed] next to it. We should discuss this on the Wikipedia: WikiProject New York City Subway first. The Legendary Ranger 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Transit Authority is. Try to reference material, and then write an original piece based on it, from www.mta.info. You can also write an email or letter to MTA asking a specific question, then post the answer using quotes and a specific attribution. TA railcar assignments change frequently. Maybe a question you should consider regarding whether the assignment of a kind of railcar to one line or another is, "Is this too trivial to write a Wkipedia article about?" What if you widened the scope and turned it into an article about railcar maimtenance capabilities - ie how NYC Transit takes care of its railcars and how fleet assignments fit into that. Wikipedia isn't a foamer page; it's a encyclopedia.
- I want to thank the person (I guess I'm on his/her page now) who posted the copyright alert to the R160 Fleet Orders page. I introduced a reference to a reliable source (press release) but my changes to the text were still too close to the press release's language. I do not know if MTA considers its press releases to enter the public domain. I will in future make sure that I do more than just make minor edits to fatally flawed text. 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Raryel
- Actually thank you for introducing the source so I would realize it was a copyright violation. (Almost anything creative is by default copyrighted.) By the way, click the button to the left of the dash above the edit box to sign your comments. --NE2 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me for butting in, but a press release, unless it is marked as restricted in some way (by time, by recipient, by who may use it) is generally assumed to be "fair use," although not "public domain." And press releases are sometimes reprinted word-for-word although many outlets will not so as not to look like they are publishing a puff piece. For the accuracy and neutral perspective of Wikipedia, I think it would be appropriate to cite that the source is a press release. -- Cecropia 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually thank you for introducing the source so I would realize it was a copyright violation. (Almost anything creative is by default copyrighted.) By the way, click the button to the left of the dash above the edit box to sign your comments. --NE2 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
From Rajat
Thanks for removing the pd:india. I tried to remove after I added it, without avail. I guess we will have to let the image die. It is something that is available to any citizen of India as part of freedom of information act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajat Bhargav (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
Re: Ninth to 9th?
I was not aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#New_York_City_Subway applied to PATH stations as well, which is why I made the change. I had no intention of changing the titles of the NYCS station articles. Every reference to the 9th Street (PATH station) outside of Wikipedia (including the official PANYNJ website) spelled it "9th" instead of "Ninth." If there are any standards for PATH that I should know about, please let me know. –Crashintome4196 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:ADHS nominated for deletion
Um... why? What's wrong with it? I just made it not 20 minutes ago.-- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
NYCS Line templates
I noticed you unbolded the line templates. For some reason, I think that because the line templates are only used in infoboxes and tables, I think that there's an exception to that, or that's still against MOS? What does the MOS page say about this? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Baltimore Bus Route template
Per this, I have userfied the template. It is located at User:NE2/Template:Baltimore Bus Route. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Time periods
I don't really like the idea of putting text after the service and icon. What we should do is put the text denoting the icon on the image description page at Commons. Sorry I can't be clearer, I'm editing with a Nintendo Wii, which sucks at typing, so I won't be taking a full part in the discussion until later tonight or tomorrow. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- An image should be shown as either an image only or as an image with a caption. It is not intuitive that someone should have to click on the image to seek details about service information. And with the different possibilities within an icon, people would have to figure out what times go with what station. What I think about is: if someone wants to print out a subway station article, service info is important, and it should be explained within the article, not via another page. The alt attribute cannot be printed; that's why I suggest accompanying text (but only in the Services section, which I tried to emphasize with my prototype). You can add text to the Commons image descriptions, but that is not an alternative to having text next to icons. Tinlinkin 06:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
New York City Subway groundbreaking
Would you please explain why you deleted a valid citation that the groundbreaking took place. The groundbreaking took place ... that is a documented historical fact, and noteworthy because it means that NYC may finally see a 2nd Ave subway after decades of planning and false starts. Your comment that the line will not be used until the line opens south of 72nd Street is valid, and is a worthwhile addition to the groundbreaking statement. Would you please reconsider your removal of the groundbreaking statement. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Truthanado 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I didn't recognize that this section was just about services. Would you please find a place in the article that would be appropriate, and put the groundbreaking info there. Thanks. Truthanado 23:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is repaving unimportant? I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you, but not strongly enough to where I personally would blank the text. It was cited (albeit poorly as Route 82 is apt to do), and should probably be allowed to stay. -- NORTH talk 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would you remove the last paragraph of the history section on I-295 (NJ) then? -- NORTH talk 03:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes... why was the text I added removed... you could have at least trimmed it down to a single paragraph or something... but not totally remove it... I put it on there because it is important imformation regarding the interstate route. More then half of it's surface is crumbling apart and rough to ride on, these repavings will make nearly the entire route a smooth driving surface... resurfacing is important... especially when it encompasses such vast distances on I-287 and I-295 as the NJDOT is planning... more then half of both interstates will be completely redone in the coming years... That large amount of work deserves to be included...(if it were only a mile or two... then i would see your point...) I think it is important for some people to know if they wanted to... plus like North said... I citied where I got the information from... so please kindly return it... thank you Route 82 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. -- NORTH talk 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete test article ?
Hi, This page is for testing a bug that only seems to happen in mainspace., whose purpose was to illustrate a bug report, doesn't seem to show the bug anymore. Shouldn't it be deleted now ? — Xavier, 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you; I've tagged it for deletion. --NE2 21:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 6
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 6 | 21 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | |||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Your experiments
What were you trying to do with your sandbox subpage? I think you mean {{User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox|A}} (which links to the service article, A), not [[User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox|A]] (which links back to my subpage, A). Is that right? Templates and links are very different from each other as links just links (respectively) to the file, while templates transclude whatever it contains {{NYCS-bull-small}} creates 
by filling in the parameter). --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Your tagging of the Rossville, Staten Island article
Since I added references as requested, I'd like to ask that you remove the WP:REF tag which you inserted into the Rossville, Staten Island article last night. I would remove it myself, but I don't know if I would be in violation of Wikipedia's policies if I did so. Thanks. Citizen Dick 11:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Template:TWP
Yeah, we can do that. I'll try to get to it tonight (I've got a few other tasks that need to get done today, but this is now on the list). Slambo (Speak) 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Doh! I'll take a thorough look at it tomorrow evening (I've got an operating session to attend at a friend's house tonight). Slambo (Speak) 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Beale's Cut
I reverted your replacement of Image:Beale's Cut 1872.jpg with Image:Beale's cut 1937.jpg. While it may seem like an 1872 photo is public domain, that is not necessarily true. If it was not published, it is only in the public domain if the photographer died before 1937. Since we don't know the photographer, we cannot know its copyright status. (See [3].) It probably cannot be used under fair use either, since we need to give credit to claim fair use. --NE2 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I point you to the last row in the top table of the Cornell web page: "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known - 120 years from date of creation". This photo comes from the A.B. Perkins collection of Santa Clarita Valley photographs. Perkins was born in 1891, so he is not the photographer. Since the photographer is unknown, the 120 year rule applies, and ergo it's public domain. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. If you want a guaranteed public domain one, see [4], a postcard from 1909 -- i.e. published before 1923. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
About Bus WikiProject
I very much like the idea of a bus Wiki project. This way, users in every large city will be encouraged to write about individual bus lines in the hometowns. I have lived in Baltimore most of my life, and though I have been on buses in other cities, I am only familiar with the details of the system in Baltimore.
I have obtained much of my information from old and current bus schedules (unfortunately, I do not have many dating back to before 1990, around the time I had started to frequently ride buses; these also cannot be placed on the web easily as references), news articles (mostly from the Baltimore Sun), Baltimore streetcar books, which can be found at the local library and at Barnes and Noble, the Baltimore Transit Archives website (which is not perfectly sufficient), and from a recent visit to the Baltimore Streetcar Museum, which supplied me with a 1929 map of the streetcars and other assistance. I have not found MTA to be very helpful in this regard.
During the early 90s, when I was a big bus rider, I was always curious about the history of the buses, and how the routes were shaped, but little if any information was available. I was able to obtain some back by asking other riders, though much of it was conflicting, and it was not perfectly reliable. My motivation for writing pages like these now is to provide others in the future with what I was unable to find back then.
Generally, the information I try to include is the current description, history, the future plans for the route, the impact it has on the communities it serves, and political issues surrounding the route. I also try to include a photo whenever possible, in order to make the article look more professional. My photos, though, are opportunity-based. Rather than traveling to the site of a particular bus and looking out for one, I take them when I happen to see them when I am in the area for some other reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebwite (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- It might be a good idea to leave the idea on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, at least until you have say 5 people as your participants either on the proposals page, the WikiProject page or a combination of both. Simply south 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but it just to ensure other people know about it and there are enough people to make the project active. Simply south 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject buses comment
- I wanted to give you heads up on this one minor "error", WikiProject buses should be capitalized and moved to WikiProject Buses with a capital B. All most all projects have it like this setup. BWCNY 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City
- Here's an idea, separate the list. A portion of the list are local routes that goes into another borough and should not be placed in the article. So, why don't we create a new article and the title: List of local multi-borough bus routes in New York City... and move the rest of the list on List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City to List of express multi-borough bus routes in New York City. This will solve the nonsense of editing back in forth with each other.
-- BWCNY 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- You missing the point, I know the QBx1 is a local route and it is listed detail on the article but, look below on this list that is attached to the article:
- List of bus routes in Brooklyn
- (Brooklyn-Manhattan) B39 and B51
- (Brooklyn-Queens) B13, B15, B20, B24, B26, B38, B52, B54, B57, and B61
- List of bus routes in the Bronx
- (Bronx-Manhattan) Bx3, Bx6, Bx7, Bx9, Bx11, Bx12, Bx13, Bx15, Bx19, Bx20, Bx33, Bx35, and Bx36
- (Bronx-Westchester) Bx16
- List of bus routes in Manhattan
- (Manhattan-Queens) M60
- List of bus routes in Queens
- (Queens-Bronx) Q44
- (Queens-Brooklyn) Q7, Q8, Q24, Q35, Q54, Q56, Q58, and Q59
- (Queens-Manhattan) Q32, Q60, Q101, and Q102
- (Queens-Nassau County) Q2, Q5, Q36, Q46, Q85, Q110, Q111, and Q113
- List of bus routes in Staten Island
- (Staten Island-Brooklyn) S53, S79, and S93
I am just recommending that separating the article might be the best thing to do because of conflicting route types of local and express in the list. -- BWCNY 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's better to separate the article with a new title. I'm trying to think you worried that I suggest on List of local multi-borough bus routes in New York City will repeat the bus route listing on other article that are present now. BWCNY 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edit on Route 144
First of all, Route 144 does not carry on the New Jersey Transit bus numbering system. This route was formerly owned by Red and Tans bus company which they used their own number system. It was inherited by independently owned bus operation. Second, it is classify as a express route. Just use the reference that you sent me and plot the stops with a map. If you think it is a local route then why the company charges a premium fare on a luxury coach bus. --BWCNY 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then just put a original research tag on the bottom of the page in which you suggested it. --BWCNY 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, well, well, I cannot edit on that page because of the 3RR and so do you as I can see on that history page. Anyhow that route 144 WILL go to that page but will listed in different form and the sources are reliable. I found some sources to justify your claim. Right now, I'm doing my job to editing different pages that are not related to the bus article. --BWCNY 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then since you put the route 144 on to different article, might as well add some reasonings to the intro? BWCNY 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least you clarified it...
Sources that route 144 is an express route:
-- BWCNY 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
MTA Metro-North Railroad logo
- Thank u for correcting me, I was editing it right now as I saw my mistakes. --BWCNY 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, found the original image, as you notice the problem. BWCNY 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Christiemap.gif
Someone had already explained that and had changed the image accordingly beforehand. It did not need to be changed. JRG 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Thanks, I've joined the group. Gherkin30 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Streets of Manhattan template
What do the "100 ft." next to each of the streets mean? It's kinda confusing to have them there. Wl219 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Highway icons
A separate issue: I noticed you removed logos from the nav boxes on highway bridge articles like Basilone Bridge. I think you're mistaken about the fair use point. Leaving only the Rt. 95 icon fails to convey the fact that the bridge is part of the NJ Turnpike. Turnpike and 95 are a concurrency, and should be so indicated. Besides, Turnpike is the more common usage since it's unambiguous as to the fact that it's a toll road, whereas 95 could mean either freeway or toll. Wl219 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use shouldn't even be an issue, the shields are works of a government agency and thus public domain. Wl219 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
WPBUS template
I think that the assessment should be removed from talk pages. The assessment should eventually be WP:BUS not WP:LT. I have reverted Unisouth's edit as it was messing the talk pages up. Simply south 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)