Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Happy New Year to all at WP:NYCPT!!!!! —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

8th Street (HBLR station)

At what point should the 8th Street (HBLR station) be added as the future western terminus of the 22nd Street—Hoboken Terminal line of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail? I was thinking of adding it in the routebox at 22nd Street (HBLR station) somehow. Not the way Brunswick (Amtrak station) was added to Portland, Maine (Amtrak station), but something better. ----DanTD (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered me in five months, I changed it myself. If I'm wrong for doing it, feel free to change it back until the station is opened. ----DanTD (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Melrose Mystery line

After failing to get a better picture of the Melrose MN station than its Wiki article already has, I pedalled east and saw this line running south. It passed west of the former Bronx Boro Courthouse, ran along the western side of St Ann's Avenue, and disappeared into St Ann's Park. Darkness approaching, I didn't chase it through the park to its presumed connection to Amtrak but went home over Third Avenue Bridge. Also got some shots from Westchester Avenue. Any idea what article this former rail line belongs to, if one has been written? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the old Port Morris branch of the New York and Harlem Railroad, probably abandoned when the Oak Point Link opened. It was owned by the NY&H even after Conrail took over operations in 1976, and the right-of-way is probably still owned by the NY&H, unless it has merged into American Premier Underwriters (the successor to Penn Central's assets that were not transferred to Conrail). The rights to use the line went to CSX in the 1999 breakup of Conrail. You would have had a fun time chasing it through the park - there's a pretty long tunnel. At the other end, it went under the Northeast Corridor to the Port Morris Yard; that bridge appears to have been removed. --NE2 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Abandonment was authorized in 2003; according to that it actually was owned by New York Central Lines LLC (part of the Conrail breakup process). --NE2 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put a better pic into the NY&H article. Bad weather and more urgent quests will probably keep me from bicycling through the South Bronx this month and next, but I hope to look for the port terminal in springtime and get some idea of the condition of the tunnel under the park. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alert: AOL FTP Space shutdown

As of Nov. 1, AOL has shut down its FTP space, and all websites they were hosting have been deleted. This will mean plenty of broken links where hometown or members AOL pages are linked to! This includes mine, which has been cited here, even before I even joined (so I didn't do it ;-). So I have scrambled the last couple of days to move them. My new address is | http://www.erictb.info/linehistory.html and | http://www.erictb.info/carhistory.html. I'm still busy setting up the new space, and I'll get to the references when I can, or someone else can do it.Eric B (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IRT Second Avenue Line article creation

(copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182#IRT Second Avenue Line article creation)

Chckmtechmp138 (contribs, talk) is creating a ton of stub articles about the IRT Second Avenue Line in New York. The articles all have one citation, and perhaps some are notable (though likely better as a list), but all are very short and poorly formatted. I've tried to contact the user on his talk page and ask him to stop creating articles until he has learned about formatting, but he's not responding. What do people suggest as a course of action? FlyingToaster 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd support a merge into a list. I still think that would be a good idea for some of the less-important outlying stations that are still in use too. --NE2 08:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has created articles for dozens of defunct stations. See:

For the vast majority of these stations, I think it is highly doubtful that they could ever advance beyond stub status. There simply isn't enough information out there to justify a separate article for each one.

As an aside, many of them do not adhere to the naming convention used for the other subway station articles, but that's beside the point if the articles do not survive, which I do not believe they should. I will place notices on the talk pages of the two editors who are working on these articles. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of folks suggested a list, but the articles for the defunct lines generally contain a list already (e.g., IRT Third Avenue Line), or a placeholder for one (e.g., IRT Sixth Avenue Line). I am not sure what more there is to say about them. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, IRT Sixth Avenue Line doesn't even have a station list. Who wants to make one? As for the articles, I'd support multiple redirects. ----DanTD (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


  • I have tried to clean up these articles but have not renamed them. Further references probably exist, including newspapers from the era when the stations were being built or being demolished and perhaps from architectural or engineering publications as well. The articles are correctly tagged as stubs, and I think a mass deletion of articles about defunct stations would set a bad precedent and might lead to many other articles about stations with hard-to-find references being deleted. Perhaps nycsubway.org has some images old enough to be in the public domain that could be used to expand the articles. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That's really the point. I am quite sure that a substantial article could be written about the Second Avenue El as a whole. The question is whether there could ever be much to say about each station individually. I am pretty familiar with the literature, and over a period of years I've watched pretty closely as the various subway articles have grown, and in some cases stagnated. I don't think substantive information about the individual stations exists. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that a precedent has already been set for allowing defunct rail line and rail station articles; see the numerous articles that exist about former stations and lines in the UK, for example Caradog Falls Halt railway station and the categories Disused railway stations in Wales, Disused railway stations in Scotland, Disused railway stations in England and similar categories elsewhere. The argument that these New York City stations will never exist again is meaningless; there is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability about requiring historical things coming back to demonstrate notability. If that were a criteria, we wouldn't have articles like the Colossus of Rhodes. Further, that the articles are short is also not significant; many Wikipedia articles are only a paragraph or two; check out any of the articles linked in List of minor planets. I suggest that these (and other) rail station articles should stay as a historical record of the New York City Subway system, which is encyclopedic. Of course, like all articles, they can be improved, and I am all in favor of doing that. Truthanado (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood the issue. The question is not whether the subject is encyclopedic—it clearly is. It is whether there is a rational probability that these individual stations could ever be developed into articles. Here you've got about 50-60 articles created in a matter of minutes, with practically no information. While Wikipedia does have plenty of articles on things that no longer exist, they are generally subjects about which it is possible to say something substantial. Colossus of Rhodes is a substantial article. There are also some articles about defunct stations that meet this test, e.g., Dean Street (BMT Franklin Avenue Line). I have no objection to articles about defunct things, only empty ones. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It's also likely that the stations were simply cookie-cutter copies of each other, making them perfect for a merge. (Merging works best when there's actual repetition that can be removed.) --NE2 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the conclusion reached here, I think it's clear that the user does not (and possibly does not know how to) respond to Wikipedia users' messages. We've left multiple talk page memos, and this user really needs to stop making pages until we reach an agreement (or at least tell him how to add stub tags). I would normally not suggest this, but would it make sense to possibly block him for an hour, just so that we can try and contact him on his talk page and explain the problems? FlyingToaster 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since last night, this editor has now created articles for dozens more defunct elevated stations in Brooklyn, on the former BMT Fulton Street Line, BMT Fifth Avenue Line, and so forth. He is ignoring past suggestions about how articles should be written—not using correct templates, not following the style guidelines, and so forth. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up that editor's stuff this morning, but the article Franklin Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) original station calls for a merger! ----DanTD (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There are about 175 articles, which I am proposing for deletion. The discussion is here. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

66th Street–Lincoln Center (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

While I was looking for information on individual stations, I found a New York Times article which mentioned 66th Street–Lincoln Center (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) and added it to the article on the station. I hope it's appropriate. Could someone else please take a look at the article? -- Eastmain (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Results of Wikipedia Takes the Subway

I see that a few participants in the recent Wikipedia Takes the Subway convention made a list of station pictures they've taken. How soon will we see any of them uploaded onto their respected articles? ----DanTD (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We're waiting on one user to upload their photos. Then, somehow they'll get to Commons, then here. Sam Blab 01:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

South Ferry & South Ferry Loop

Per previous discussion... Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_11#South_Ferry_.26_South_Ferry_Loop

I have created the new page for the station complex in my userspace at User:Acps110/South Ferry–Whitehall Street (New York City Subway).

Summery of consensus that has been reached:

  • Preferred name of South Ferry–Whitehall Street over Whitehall Street–South Ferry.
  • Merge will NOT happen until station complex opens.
  • Move existing page South Ferry (New York City Subway) to South Ferry loops (New York City Subway) because the old loop station has no passenger connection/passageway to the new complex, and will be completely closed and abandoned (to passengers). (Wiki-links to be included from the new complex for historical reference to both the closed loops and the closed elevated station.)
  • Edit redirects to reflect the fact that some articles need to link to the loops page for historical reference; some need to be updated to point to the new complex. (eg. any article that refers to South Ferry when it was served by Lexington Ave trains on either loop.)
  • Edit new redirect South Ferry (New York City Subway) to redirect to disambiguation page - South Ferry.
  •  
  • Do NOT move City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) to City Hall Loop (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) because that it not what it was named while the station was open.

Acps110 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Old South Ferry Station

Slightly on the subject of mass Transit in the South Ferry area, I've been trying to make an infobox for South Ferry (IRT elevated station), but I can't seem to find a way to add more than two lines. I've already got the box hidden, so is there any way to add all four lines to it? ----DanTD (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New South Ferry station

A sample of the proposed Whitehall Street-South Ferry can be seen at User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox. If anyone feels that any changes should be made, go ahead. I want to have the article up and runnung before the station is proposed to open (next week!!!). —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this image be appropriate for the South Ferry IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line platform infobox? -----DanTD (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that's the former South Ferry; Need a picture of the new station! :-) Acps110 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
So I guess they're not reusing any part of the old station. Okay. ----DanTD (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. The loops are shutting down to passenger service and the entrance will be removed. The loops will stay in service to short-turn 1 and 5 trains, but no passenger stop. Acps110 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It has opened; I'm in the process of fixing links. Acps110 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just threw a few categories into it. I'll let you and others do the rest. ----DanTD (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article looks great; I'm really impressed by everyone's hard work. Right after school, I went straight to the new terminal and took a few shots of the station, and it's BEAUTIFUL. I'll have the pictures up tomorrow. I'll even put some videos on my YouTube page (same as my WP userpage.) —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

City Hall (Lexington Ave) station

I really think that City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) is a pretty fascinating station. It was the first station on the city's first subway line, and its the only subway station that features a significant amount of architecture. Anyway, I'd like to work on the article and get it to GA-status and was wondering if anyone was interested in helping out because I don't feel like getting involved in working on the entire article by myself. I get pretty dedicated to articles (take a look at U2 3D) and I think this could get to featured article status someday. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does [1] (Java required) help? --NE2 11:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does. Thanks for the source. But before I get too far into working on the article, I was looking for some editors who would be willing to help me work on it. I'm not too worried about finding sources to reference for information. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What sort of help do you need? I'd be glad to take a look at it. Acps110 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:28, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Willets Point–Shea Stadium on Flushing Line

Requested move from Willets Point–Shea Stadium (IRT Flushing Line) to Mets–Willets Point (IRT Flushing Line). The March 2009 map[2] indicates the new name.

Discussion here... Talk:Willets Point–Shea Stadium (IRT Flushing Line).
Acps110 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Metro-North Railroad stations

There's already a List of Long Island Rail Road stations. Does anybody want to start a similar project for Metro-North? ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

South Ferry Loops track map image

Track map (closed platforms in pink)

This picture needs to be updated...
Can anybody update the outer loop platform to pink to indicate it's closed? Acps110 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it appropriate to include the tracks and platform of the new South Ferry station? --Tinlinkin (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That may be a little too much to include. How about just where the tracks split off from the loop with a note, "To South Ferry station."? Acps110 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me. (BTW, I don't have a good graphics program like Photoshop, etc. so I'm not doing it. If I could, I would.) --Tinlinkin (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of Template:Infobox NYCS

I have been working on an overhaul of Template:Infobox NYCS. The template should be more readable and better to understand and expand. It will include more parameters and simplify some existing ones. More details on Template talk:Infobox NYCS#Overhaul. --Tinlinkin (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just thought some of you would like to know that all the offical URL's of the Long Island Rail Road stations have changed. I did at least two stations on the Atlantic Branch and Jamaica (LIRR station), but there are plenty more to do. I don't know if the ones for Metro-North Stations have been changed, but they should be examined as well.

Just out of curiosity, if we were to convert all the LIRR & Metro-North offical links into templates, as you see with Amtrak and Metra stations, would this thrwart the need to convert the offical links when the LIRR & Metro-North changes them? ----DanTD (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Metro-North Harlem Line template split

I just tried to split the Template:S-line/MNRR right/Harlem between the current terminus at Wassaic and the former terminus at Chatham, and it didn't work. Would somebody mind telling me what I did wrong? ----DanTD (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You had the right idea. It's just that also the Chatham station in Template:MNRR stations had to be defined. (See Template:S-line/doc#Termini.) I made a change to one sttation, Sharon (NYCRR station), and for other articles you can just add "|type2=Chatham" in the S-line templates. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New LIRR color bars needed

I'd like to find a way to fix two color bars for some Long Island Rail Road lines. The first is the "Greenport Branch," which since it's merley an extension of the Ronkonkoma Branch should be the same color. The other is the Rockaway Beach Branch, which I'd like to turn gray. The same goes for if anybody else decided to write an article about a station on a non-existant line for some reason. That is of course, unless somebody knows of an official color for those lines that the LIRR had that I don't know about. I just can't find the color code for gray. ----DanTD (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How do they look now? Tinlinkin (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Both are white, if not invisible. ----DanTD (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Looks like you did it. I'm going to look for the codes. ----DanTD (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New PATH move

There's a new proposal to move Port Authority Trans-Hudson here. (Obviously I do not support it.) Tinlinkin (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Colors in navboxes

Introduction: I recently edited Template:New York City Subway and Template:NYCS lines navbox to add colors to those templates. The following are comments related to those changes, moved from my talk page. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While I definately agree that the colorboxes you added to the general NYC Subway navbox are a great addition, due to the extensive use of color on public maps, signs and other things related to the routes, I was thinking it might no be so appropriate for the Subway line navbox, considering that many lines are often used by multiple routes. It certainly looks funny to see that many color boxes next to the Queens Blvd line. Just wanted you thoughts on the matter.oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the colors should only be on the trunk lines in the template. An E via Sixth Avenue should be orange, an F via the Crosstown should be light green, however no trains have the ability to display this. I would have liked the external signage on the New-Tech trains (R142, R143, R160) to include the color bullet. Maybe they can add that to the R179s and R188s. Acps110 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is: if a line is in service, it deserves to be colored. (I only added colors to the BMT 63rd and the 2nd Av. Subway because services for those lines have been established, at least preliminarily.) For any person who is not familiar with, but wants to learn about the NYC Subway system, I find the colors are helpful in this instance. Multiple colors exist only because a single color (or no color) would be insufficient to describe the line. Although there is a merit for showing colors for trunk lines only, the resulting template would look inconsistent with coloring; plus, since the trunk lines are Manhattan-centric, somebody can interpret bias in that. If you want to distinguish between trunk lines, italics (preferred) or footnotes using asterisks and such would be better. I don't find irregular services as Acps110 described to be a problem; they are too limited to warrant a mention. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you have a good point about new users finding it more navigable with the colors. That said, I tend to think the route designator letters and numbers may be more specific and useful. For example, both the Queens Blvd line and the Concourse line would have orange on them, due to them both feeding the Sixth Ave line, but there's no single through route that uses both. To someone unfamiliar with the system, the presence of orange next to both might cause confusion. So, while attempting to provide extra guidence, the colors may actually defeat the purpose. Which brings me back to my original thought, which is that colors should be reserved to the main navbox and the route designation therein. That, I believe would provide more guidence to the NYC Subway rookie. oknazevad (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think about through services, and what you said seems plausible. I see two solutions:
  • Show the services in the color boxes, as in  4, 5, 6  (and reverse the order of the lines and colorboxes) -or-
  • Add a note to the bottom of the template saying something like, "The colors represent the services that run on the lines. Lines that share the same color have the same trunk line but do not necessarily connect directly with each other."
what do you think? Tinlinkin (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The second solution seems a bit awkward and may lead to questions about bothering with the colors in the first place, so I'm not too keen on that.
The first one, presuming you mean listing the name of the line first, would be really sharp looking (and would also look great on the main Subway navbox). But it may run into the same concerns that were brought up regarding using colored links in the box, namely that links other than the standard red/blue/purple combo are discouraged, due to the concern that they may confuse unfamiliar readers. Maybe if the links were kept blue, it'd probably be ok. I would try it myself, but I stink at color templates. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how to fix the infobox green on NJT's Gladstone and Morristown lines (it's too emerald/grey, and not foresty enough compared to the color on the schedules.)
That said, the more I think about it, the more I like the first solution, and wouldn't even mind seeing it in the main navbox.oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I am aware that links should be blue, but the result would be  4, 5, 6 –obviously unreadable. I considered not linking to the articles, but that probably seems unwise (what do the numbers/letters mean?). You could take a look at a template like Template:Paris Metro/line 3, from which I got the idea. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
To edit the colors for NJT, look at Template:NJT line color. (Hint: pay attention to the "templates used in this section" at the bottom of the page.) Tinlinkin (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks better with the white text. I say go for it, and if anyone objects, you can blame me. P.S., thanks for the template help, it looks better to me now.oknazevad (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to say earlier, was that for a newbie, the colors don't mean anything unless they know the colors are assigned to trunk lines. I like the simple color boxes without the services, but I think for clarity to a newbie, they should only be shown on the trunk lines. Acps110 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess we disagree, then. Just to visualize the proposals, here is what Acps110 proposes:
And here is my version, influenced by oknazevad:
Now seeing my version, I now feel divided between the two. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also do not like the current version of Template:New York City Subway. The reason is, being a navbox for services, when you are on a service page, you will need to know the current page you are on. My preference is my previous version, which also is consistent with the format of other transit navboxes that have colors. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One additional question... Why are these colors, italics and descriptions buried in the Template? Shouldn't they be on the List of New York City Subway lines page too? I would support Tinlinkin's version expanded out to that page, and a simplified template for transclusion. Acps110 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For the list page, that's a great idea. I'm going to hold off on changing the templates until there is additional input. Tinlinkin (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the reason I like the service letters and numbers being in the colors, as opposed to alongside them, is the fact that's how they appear in actual usage. On other systems the color is the sole designator, and therefore act as disambiguators in themselves. NYC is unique in that regard, having both the letter/number and color working together to inform riders of the route. I believe the template should reflect that as well.
As for the lines template, including the services in the same format allows for those unfamiliar with the system, or even those who ride the system everyday but are unfamiliar with the difference between lines and routes, to understand the relationship at a literal glance. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Back when I was active, there was considerable debate over whether to put the images of service bullets inline in articles. I'm too lazy to search for those discussions, but I think this issue is similar to that. (It's a pity that I haven't seen the people active in those discussions since I came back to WP...) A navbox template, although it is not an inline template, should not use decoration unless it's necessary or helpful (WP:NAV). I only suggested to put service letters and numbers in colors on the lines template because that template is used for navigating between the lines and not the services. In that case, the use of text within colorboxes is used for demonstrating services that use the lines. However, the services template is used for navigating between the services. It is necessary to determine which page you are on using that template (e.g. if you're reading the 2 service page, the 2 service should be bolded within the navbox because that is the place you are in within that navbox). The current services template does not do that, and I believe it should. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You make a good point about the bolding. To that end, I undid the bolding on the service template. It's now more apparent which page one is on, as that link does appear bolded compared to the others, even if it's not as obvious as it could be.
That said, I still believe the letter in the colorbox is helpful and useful, becasue of the visual similarity to the service bullets, the primary identifier within the system. (Though being squares, they all look like terminal stations to me!)oknazevad (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really thought through the arguments for or against the colors in the navbox (my gut says no), but I think the one with letters inside the color box looks way too busy. There's too much going on inside the box. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So I gotta ask, is there a consensus here for Template:New York City Subway? Tinlinkin (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No response, so there's no consensus and the navboxes stay as they are. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Colors in general

I should mention now that I am planning to add colors to pages such as List of New York City Subway stations and the infoboxes for individual stations, and I have already applied color to List of New York City Subway lines. If you think there will be issues surrounding all of this, it's best to say so now. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do, would you consider MTA-standard bulletized logos instead of the existing color squares in the new version of the template? ----DanTD (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to use Template:Rail color box for Infobox NYCS and continue the color format that's present in List of New York City Subway lines for various lists of stations. Bulletized logos are possible with Template:Bulletsign, but I will not use that because in most cases, that is a decorative choice that would be an exception to the MoS, and I cannot justify breaking the MoS in those instances. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Don't color links; blue and red have meanings here. --NE2 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you notice, though, the underlines of the links are still blue and purple. (there's no redlinks in the template, nor should there be.) oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no underlines in the default link style, at least in some browsers. --NE2 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As clarification... I support use of bullets and colors whenever and wherever, describing services only. I have a problem with colors being used when describing a line because they can be very transitory. D in Brooklyn, is it the Culver Local, Brighton Express or West End Local? Depends on the time-frame. (As an aside, maybe this is why the R160 F announcements this past weekend, via the C line drove me bonkers. It's via the Fulton St local!) Even though the BMT 63rd St line is scheduled to be serviced by the yellow Q, I think that describing the line with a yellow swatch is misleading. It could be served by an orange K or V later. The same goes with many other lines. In any case, if the standard template for service bullets is used, one problem is that it can't be used as a link to that service page. I think we should always include a link to the service page with text whenever a service bullet is used except for inside an infobox. Acps110 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). --NE2 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NE2: I don't like the use of colored service bullets inline within article text because it would break the Manual of Style. I could support the first template for lines above, although I think the second is clear enough. Services running along a particular line can change, but I don't feel the way colors appear in the lines template are representative of or associative with any singular line—particularly when services are present—except with trunk lines, as they clearly are the determinant for service colors. I know that is a distinction to be made, and I can see that distinction is clear with either lines template. The color swatches without services can be eliminated. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thinking it over, I must say, if we are to include colors in the lines navbox, I think that we should only include them next to the trunks, per Acps110's suggestion. They're the only case where the colors are essentially permanent, and determine every other color application throughout the system. So they strike me as important enough to include, but they shouldn't overwhelm the navbox. They should remain in the services box, though, and I kinda like the idea of using the bullets, if others agree.oknazevad (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Old Put mystery

East of the playing field

Can anybody identify these approximately dozen structures in Van Cortlandt Park? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the 5 boroughs, I know the least about the Bronx. Sorry. :( Tinlinkin (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this it? "One oddity along this wooded trail is an assemblage of large stone panels that appears to be the ruins of some ancient monument. In fact, this north Bronx Stonehenge is where testing was done to determine which type of stone would be best for the construction of Grand Central Terminal." --NE2 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
NE2 seems to be correct. See also: http://www.forgotten-ny.com/SUBWAYS/Putnam%20Branch%20page/putnam.html —Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank y'all kindly. I love bicycling around town photographing interesting or odd sights. This being one of the oddest, I also love learning what it is, and have put my pic in Van Cortlandt Park since it isn't important enough for the Grand Central Terminal article. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

category questions

Should I create categories such as Category:Defunct BMT Jamaica Line stations?

Also, I am planning to create categories that group NYC Subway stations by borough, such as Category:New York City Subway stations in the Bronx. Question: within each such category, should I put individual stations or entire line categories? I'm thinking the former.

And I have proposed to rename Category:IND Culver Line stations and Category:Independent Subway System (New York City). Tinlinkin (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cobble Hill Tunnel "subway" before London Underground?

An IP is claiming that the Cobble Hill Tunnel was a "subway" system (or subway tunnel, at least) before the inception of the London Underground, and has repeatedly edited the latter article, inserting that claim (i.e. [3]). If somebody can clarify the issue at Talk:London Underground#Underground London (discussion moved from User Talk:DanielRigal & Cobble Hill Tunnel), please do so.Tinlinkin (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cobble Hill was technically an underground railroad before London had one, but so was any tunnel, like the one on the Allegheny Portage Railroad. The Cobble Hill Tunnel was simply a way to avoid a steep grade, while London's underground railways were built underground for more substantial reasons. --NE2 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_12&oldid=1137371444"