Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This talk page archive was previously part of WikiProject New York City Subway, which has since expanded to WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Old/New Station Naming Convention

hI've only just started looking at the NYCS pages. It seems that, at one point, station pages had names like Fulton Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station), and the convention was changed to Fulton Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line). Many pages following the former convention still exist, but usually they are #REDIRECTed to the equivalent page following the latter convention. There are, however, exceptions. Woodhaven Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line station) follows the former convention, and does not redirect.

The page List of New York City Subway stations relies on a template called "NYCS sll" that assumes the former convention. Thus, "NYCS sll|Woodhaven Boulevard|BMT|Jamaica Line expands successfully to "{{NYCS sll}}". However, on the same page, "NYCS sll|Fulton Street|BMT|Nassau Street Line}}" expands to a red link, because Fulton Street (BMT Nassau Street Line station) does not exist, but Fulton Street (BMT Nassau Street Line) does.

Is the "NYCS sll" template performing a sufficently useful function that it should be rewritten to conform to the current station naming convention? Or, should the List of New York City Subway stations be revised in some other way? Marc Shepherd 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find NYCS station link long (and NYCS sll, which redirects there) to have almost no purpose at all. The only places that it seems to be used is on List of New York City Subway stations, as well as on a few subway "disambiguation" pages such as 46th Street (New York City Subway station) and Bedford Park Boulevard (New York Subway), which themselves have very limited purpose. I think that we should not rewrite the template, however. As you noted, some articles (although some of them can barely be called such) have been written under the old convention. If we change that template, then some stations will become redlinked, because they have articles under the old format and not the new. What is better, I think, is to leave the template as it is. If we find an article named under the old format, it should be renamed to reflect the new one. If there is already an article under the new one, they should be merged. If there is an article under the new name but not an article/redirect under the old one, we should create the redirect. This will help network other articles that have links formatted under the old style, without having to edit all of them to reflect the new.
As for List of New York City Subway stations, I think that it should be rewritten without the template. I don't see any true benefit to the way it is set up now. — Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've revised List of New York City Subway stations per these suggestions. Marc Shepherd 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Template question

According to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates, {{NYCS Eastern east}} covers the IRT Eastern Parkway Line from Utica Avenue to New Lots Avenue. That template currently expands to 2 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1}} 3 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}} 4 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1a5}} 5 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1}}. As far as I know, the 2 and the 5 do not operate on that part of the line in any regularly scheduled service. Unless I am missing the purpose of the template, it appears to be mis-coded.

Similarly, {{NYCS Eastern center}}, {{NYCS Eastern center express}}, and {{NYCS Eastern center local}} also appear to be in error, for the same reason. Marc Shepherd 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a few 2 and 5 trains operate towards New Lots during rush hours, as well as a couple of 4 east of Utica. — Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither the MTA map nor the published timetables for the 2 and 5 show this to be the case. I can also say that, as a regular 2 rider, I can't recall seeing a 2 train signed for anything other than Flatbush Avenue, unless it was a GO for construction. Is there a citable source for this? In an encyclopedia for the general reader, shouldn't we be relying on what is documented?
BTW, the 4 operates east of Utica late nights, when the 3 isn't running, so I have no problem with that. It's the allocation of the 2 and the 5 to the eastern end of the Eastern Parkway Line that I'm doubting. Marc Shepherd 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I've never seen any evidence for this either; I believe I've seen conversations here between other editors discussing this. I would not rule this out, however; for instance, there is no published evidence (schedule, etc.) that the E ever runs to/from Jamaica–179th Street, but it does run a few trains from there during rush hours to compensate for lack of capacity at Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer, and it is quite heavily frequented. I'll look for some sources, though. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's on the subway map. Check the service tables. It's in italics. See for yourselves Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, I don't know how I've never noticed that… actually I do remember seeing those blurbs before, but I'd forgotten. So yeah, there's the source. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And sorry, I'm running short on cookies right now. Maybe next time =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh darn it! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
However, there remains no documented evidence for the 2 or 5 train using the far end of the Eastern Parkway line in regularly scheduled service. Marc Shepherd 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Define, documented. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any MTA literature, newspaper article, or something indicating that this is a scheduled service pattern. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Marc Shepherd 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that the subway map is not MTA literature. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The map situation nowadays isn't like it was decades ago, when the MTA used maps created by external cartographers (e.g., Hagstrom). Today, the MTA itself maintains The Map, so it's just as valid a piece of MTA documentation as schedules, and more so than any newspaper article, I should think. Now, the schedules do not say that no 2 and 5 trains go to New Lots Avenue. The Map, however, says that they do. Perhaps the trips aren't scheduled; maybe congestion dictates whether or not a train goes to New Lots or not. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing this issue with Marc Shepherd. However, he was outvoted. But I think that the way service operates on a daily basis should be added. If there's a GO, it should be added, with a title called General Order service changes. They can be rmoved when the disruption is over. --imdanumber1 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Wikipedia should be turned into the bulletin board for GO's. This information can never be better than what is posted on the MTA website, and it's likely to be worse. Marc Shepherd 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking of adding information on 2 trains operating via East Side Express, and 5 trains operating West Side Express. Marc said not to, since it is not on signage or map. Even though the map says 2 and 5 trains going to New Lots, it doesn't state this on signage in stations. This is all confusing.--imdanumber1 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he brought it up originally, I've been asking imdanumber1 for a citable reliable verifiable source for 2 trains operating on the East Side or 5 trains operating on the West Side, aside from occasional construction re-routes. He has yet to come up with anything. Marc Shepherd 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Marc, will a picture showing 5 trains via West Side Express and 2 trains via East Side Express count? It is shown on R142 side LED's. --imdanumber1 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Station Photos

I've been noticing that a lot of articles are missing photos. Do you guys think that it would be worth it to get photos of them? (I'm thinking something like whenever I go through a station, just sticking my head out and taking some picture.) Or, do you think it's not worth it. To be quite frank, most of the stations are pretty much the same. --Alphachimp talk 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

True, a lot of stations look quite alike. If you think that a station stands out for some reason, then go ahead and snap away… and if you're in doubt, well, take a couple anyway; it's always best to err on the side of caution. Maybe I'll make up a list of stations that I think merit photos. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't overwork yourself. I'm just going to go around and take photos. Even if they aren't amazing, they're still better than nothing. Alphachimp talk 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is true… just watch out for the cops =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Take a copy of da rules with you, to avoid any trouble. I would add some, but they're really crappy cell phone pictures. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought taking photos on the train was legal now...is it? Alphachimp talk 18:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically yes, but the police will still give you a hard time about it. You just have to be confident that you are in the right, and follow PCH's idea of bringing a copy of the rules with you. And it would help if you made sure no police were around =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That must have something to do with why 59th St. Columbus Circle has no photos. I've gotta get an orange reflective vest. Alphachimp talk 18:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: My lazyness has kept me from bringing my camera anywhere. Hopefully I can get around to it tomorrow. Alphachimp talk 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like, when I get my new camera, I could place photos of every station on every line. I will try East Side Line, and even getting a glimpse of the abandoned City Hall Station. imdanumber1 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Hey Alphachimp: My brother, who works for MTA, has hundreds of those orange vests.

Proposed changes to {{TrainsWikiProject}} for subprojects

I've proposed a change to {{TrainsWikiProject}} that would incorporate links to the various subprojects of WikiProject Trains. Your input on the template talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Defunct/Abandoned/Demolished, etc.

Is there a policy on the categorization of former stations?

Background

Here's what we have today:

And one last point: the List of New York City Subway stations currently includes City Hall, Worth Street, 18th Street, and 91st Street, but it includes no other closed stations.

Proposal

There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency here, but I would suggest the following:

  • The category Abandoned New York City Subway stations should include stations that still physically exist, but which no longer provide revenue service. (Stations temporarily closed would not be considered "abandoned," even if the closure lasts a long time, e.g., Cortlandt Street on the Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line).
  • The categories Defunct IRT stations and Defunct BMT stations seem to me redundant, and could be eliminated. But if they are to remain, perhaps they should include every article on an IRT or BMT station that no longer provides service, whether that station was abandoned or demolished. Otherwise, I am not sure what is the distinction between "defunct" and "demolished."

One final point: some of the articles on subway lines include "red links" to demolished stations that don't currently have their own articles. For instance, the article on the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line has red links to twelve demolished stations, the BMT Canarsie Line to three others; the page for the BMT Jamaica Line does not do this. It's difficult for me to imagine that there would ever be enough to say about these stations to justify separate articles for them, so perhaps these station names should be de-linked. Marc Shepherd 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

I agree that there needs to more consistency concerning categorization of these types of stations, but I don't really see the need for four separate categories, each of which probably never have more than five articles. I suggest that all articles about abandoned/demolished/defunct stations be placed in one category, Category:Defunct New York City Subway stations, which would include all stations which no longer see revenue service, regardless of current physical state.

I do agree about the red links; they should be removed.

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the counter-proposal. I had assumed that the four categories were dear to someone's heart, and so was trying to rationalize them somehow. But personally, I don't see the need for four separate categories either. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. Vote for deletion of the other categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 5#Categories for defunct NYC subway stations. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also found three similar categories for defunct lines: Category:Defunct BMT lines (2 articles), Category:Defunct IND lines (1 article), and Category:Defunct IRT lines (4 articles). If no one objects, I'll do the same with these as I did the the station categories and create one category (Category:Defunct New York City Subway lines), nominating the other three for deletion. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Good thinking. Alphachimp talk 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories for defunct New York City Subway lines. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also check out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories for defunct New York City Subway services. I've eliminated a similar system regarding defunct services; these are now at Category:Defunct New York City Subway services. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Subway Line rationalization

The template {{NYCS lines}} has a few anomalies:

  • Under the sub-heading of "BMT, Manhattan Trunks and Branches" is an entry for Manhattan Bridge. This points to an article about the physical bridge, which includes a section on the subway tracks. But elsewhere, we have not categorized Manhattan Bridge as a separate "line" of the subway. It is not listed on List of New York City Subway lines, nor is it in New York City Subway lines.
  • There is evidently some confusion on this topic, because some articles do link to BMT Manhattan Bridge Line, and if you follow that link, it redirects to the article on the physical bridge. I think some earlier editors did consider the Manhattan Bridge to be a separate line.
  • The defunct lines category has an entry for BMT Brooklyn Loops, but there is no link for this in {{NYCS lines}}. My own view is that BMT Brooklyn Loops should be moved to BMT Nassau Street Loop, and "Nassau" should be one of the defunct BMT lines shown in the NYCS lines navbox. The only other "loop" briefly discussed in that article, the Centre Street Loop, is merely an unimplemented concept— it was never built.

I realize that some people have quite strong views on what is/is not a subway line, so I wanted to raise the issue rather than just recategorizing articles on my own. Marc Shepherd 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The template was written up before I came around, so I'm not sure of exactly what the authors were thinking; I simply cleaned it up a little while ago.
  • I wouldn't consider the Brooklyn Bridge trackage to be its own line, personally, and would have no problem with removing it from the line template.
  • I would also not consider the Manhattan Bridge trackage to be its own line; if anything, I would call the north side tracks Sixth Avenue and the south side Broadway. You are correct in that many editors before did categorize it as its own line, thus leading to the links to [[BMT Manhattan Bridge Line]].
  • "Kings County Elevated Railway" encompasses the BMT Fulton Street El, and should be categorized under defunct lines.
  • I have also wondered about rationale behind the "Brooklyn Loops" article, since the only implemented loop was in fact the Nassau Street loop. Cecropia seems to have been the biggest contributor to that article, so we should probably consult him about it before doing anything. If he's okay with it, I suggest that the loops article be merged into BMT Nassau Street Line (which badly needs content anyway).
  • The Culver Ramp is most definitely NOT its own line, and I doubt that anyone in their right mind would claim it as such. It is, perhaps, a distinct structure that had a hand in uniting the BMT and IND divisions, but it is certainly not a line in and of itself.
--Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll put in my two cents, and, as the old NYCTA missives said: "Be Governed Accordingly."
As a general point, maybe we need to decide how we approach lines. With lines that pre-date the Dual Contracts, each line segment has at least three things going on: The line has/had a physical presence (Fulton Street Elevated), it had an operating company with a distinct corporate history (Kings County Elevated) and it had/has a service pattern (J (New York City Subway service). These are not necessarily mergible into a single article, especially not the services and lines, which we already (and correctly) keep distinct. Now, individual issues:
Brooklyn Bridge Line: Where do we put this? It was very distinctly a separate line, originally operated by cable, with no connection to the elevateds that later ran to it and then hooked up to it. From 1898 (IIRC, I'd have to check) until 1920 virtually every BRT service used it. They were routed onto the bridge essentially by building connectors from the existing lines onto the Bridge Yard Deck (KC connector, Adams Street Cut). Technically, the BMT considered part of the Fulton Street Line (i.e., it was chained "K") but, of course, in its last four years only Myrtle and Lex used it.
Manhattan Bridge Line: Tough one. It was originally intended to be a separate line (Manhattan Bridge and Canal Street), was built as part of the Broadway-4th Avenue subway. It was chained "H" (south side) and "A" (Brighton), but now the Broadway Line portion is a separate chaining line ("H") for its entire length and the north side is half-and-half (IND "B" and BMT "A"). If you separate the two sides and ignore the commonality of the Bridge, then the north side is really the Chrystie Street Connection (which is distinct from the Houston Street Line, which is really not the same thing as the 6th Avenue Line) and the south side is part of the Broadway Line, but then what about the "H" chaining?
Kings County Elevated: There should really be a separate article for the Fulton Street el and the KCERy. The Fulton Street Elevated links go to KCERy simply because no one has written a separate article for Fulton el yet and it is better to redirect to KCERy than have a red link.
Brooklyn Loops: Actually this came about because SPUI insisted on having one article for the Centre Street and Nassau Street Loops. "Brooklyn Loops" was an operating concept; Centre Street and Nassau Street are lines. It is not really true that the "Centre Street Loop, is merely an unimplemented concept— it was never built." What wasn't completed was the Brooklyn Bridge connection. The Centre Street Line was built and still exists: It is the "J" line trackage from Essex Street to Chambers Street. All BMT documents (and after) called this the Centre Street Line or the Centre Street Loop (though it never made it to Loop-ness). The Nassau Street Line or Loop is only the portion from Chambers to the Montague Street Tunnel.
Culver Ramp is not a distinct line but is a historically significant connector. It is in the same general category as the 60th Street tunnel connection or the Chrystie Street connector. -- Cecropia 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional category for deletion

I've proposed Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue stations for deletion, as it is an empty category. All of the stations on that line are in Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations.

Vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 6#Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue stations. Marc Shepherd 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to help and contribute

on this wikiproject — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMW814 (talk • contribs)

Awesome! Feel free to add your name to the project at WP:NYCS. I assume that you're not currently in NYC, but there are a lot of things that you can do to help even if you're not. Larry V or Pacific Coast Highway could probably think of a lot of really good suggestions. Again, thanks for offering to help. Alphachimp talk 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: "Wikipedia is not a timetable"

A policy re: station and station stop articles is being proposed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and it has been suggested that it be considered here as well. Please come and comment at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Mangoe 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

guys, I would encourage you all to check out this page. The proposal basically suggests that all train station articles that do not describe a specifically unique station are deleted or merged into the subway line article. Alphachimp talk 06:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
A bit of an overstatement. The intent is to try to stem the tide of station stop articles that do nought but duplicate timetable information. I'm inclined to update the proposal to explicitly exclude subway stations. In any case I feel this project has taken a particularly good approach to station articles, at least as far as subways are concerned. Mangoe 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah OK. I noticed that you changed it earlier today. I was somewhat alarmed about the implications of setting a policy against train stations. Alphachimp talk 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As was I, having put in several hundred hours of time into so many of these articles. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In other news, I began taking pictures today, which would make deleting all NYCT articles (or at least the "NN" ones) quite alarming. Alphachimp talk 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So much for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Wikipedia 'is' pages; that organizational constraint hasn't been done away with. The "lumper/splitter" paradigm isn't eliminated by hypertext. Mangoe 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but could you please say that in English? I don't think I understood a word you said. Alphachimp talk 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What he meant is that "pages" stil exist, even on a website. What I meant is the constraints of a piece of paper. Soon, we'll be in violation of a policy for following another one. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no fears about the New York City Subway articles. Some of the articles mentioned in Mangoe's essay are far more simple than most of ours (e.g., Dunellen (NJT station), Oyama Station). --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

lol. I see your point. Alphachimp talk 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Which stations to list

I've been having a conversation with Larry V that I'm repeating and expanding here. In the infoboxes on station pages, and in the tables on the line and service pages, which stations should be attributed to which services?

The pages for DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line), Canal Street (Manhattan Bridge), and Atlantic–Pacific Streets do not show N service via the bridge line stopping at DeKalb Avenue, but the published timetable does show about 7-8 N trains every weekday, in each direction, using the bridge line and making that stop. Twice I've put the N onto DeKalb Avenue, and twice Larry V has edited it out again. Perhaps the philosophy is that the stop is made too infrequently?

But if so, then why do the pages for the IRT Eastern Parkway Line stations beyond Franklin Avenue show 2 and 5 service? The published timetables for the 2 and the 5 show no such service. (It is mentioned in a small-print footnote on the subway map).

A similar issue arises for E service to 179th Street — not mentioned in the published timetable, but mentined in small print on the subway map, and shown in Wikipedia articles for those the E service, the IND Queens Boulevard Line, and the two affected stations (Jamaica-179th Street and Parsons Boulevard.

If there's a consistent approach there, I can't see it. Either all articles should show every published stop (even those made rarely), or all articles should show the typical stops, ignoring these "oddball" exceptions. I can see merits to both, but the articles are not consistent as of now. Marc Shepherd 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The N runs via DeKalb Avenue during late nights. The timetable you specified mentioned only 3 daytime trains stopping, all southbound, and in the PM rush hour. If that's the case, a template time thingy should mention pm rush hour (southbound only) and late nights only. And EVERY stop, oddball or not should be listed. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
By my count, the southbound N takes the bridge and stops at DeKalb at these times: 6:07a, 6:25a, 6:36a, 6:48a, 6:57a, 5:53p, 5:45p, 6:04p. The northbound N takes the bridge and stops at DeKalb at these times: 5:55a, 10:00p, 10:12p, 10:24p, 10:36p, 10:48p, 11:00p. Marc Shepherd 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
After consideration, I would not object to changing the service templates to include the N service. After all, I do advocate leaving the info about the 2, 5, and E, and it would be hypocritical to exclude the N. What must then be considered is whether those N trains stopping at DeKalb also ran local along Fourth Avenue; if we change the DeKalb info, we have to change the various Fourth Ave templates as well. It is possible that the N runs switch from express to local before DeKalb, but it is not a certain thing; they very well might have run local all the way from the Sea Beach junction. The schedule suggests express runs from Pacific to 59th for the three evening southbound runs, but for the early morning rush and late evening runs, it suggests local runs. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Then those northbound trains (somehow) are the late night runs. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Straphanger

The Straphanger article is prominently linked from the {{NYCS navbox}} navigation box.

The article, though, defines "straphanger" in a general way, and provides several non-mass transit meanings. Should this be considered a "New York City Subway stub," and linked from the NYCS nav box?

A short while ago, I put a "cleanup" tag on the article, whereupon someone promptly cleaned it up, but its connection to the subway remains tenuous. Marc Shepherd 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've now put a {{unencyclopedic}} tag on it. Maybe an encyclopedia article is possible, but this isn't one. Marc Shepherd 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I agree and do not feel that this is or ever can be specific enough to the New York City Subway system to merit being in {{NYCS navbox}}. By definition, the term applies to a far wider field that simply New York. I'll remove it. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree. It really doesnt belong. Let's remove it from the navbox.Alphachimp talk 19:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Various duplications

We have articles for every New York City Subway service, and also for every line. One frequently encounters wording such as "the R Line," but I certainly agree that "R" is a service, not a line, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.

Unfortunately, however, there are many cases where services and lines are very close to the same thing. I was doing some work today on G (New York City Subway service). Note that the IND Crosstown Line has a "History" section that is almost identical to a similar section on the G page.

I encountered a similar problem when I added quite a bit of background information to the IND 63rd Street Line article. However, that background is more-or-less identical to the background of the BMT 63rd Street Line, as the two were conceived and constructed simultaneously. In that case, I previously suggested merging the two articles, not because they are operationally identical, but because so much of the background is common. There was no consensus for making a change, but I would note that Archer Avenue Line is one article, although that line's two levels don't even have a track connection, as the two 63rd Street lines do.

I am not suggesting a solution at this point, but just making the observation, as the issue arises in several contexts. Marc Shepherd 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In the case of 63rd Street, as you know, I would advocate the merging, only because of the close history (but certainly not to suggest that they are the same line).
Where else besides G / Crosstown have you noticed such close correlation between service and lines? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
As to the G service and the Crosstown Line, they are not the same thing at all. The Crosstown Line is only the portion from Queens Plaza to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. It has a planning history going back at least to the Triborough System, including routings nothing lke what we have today. The G/GG service happens to use the Crosstown Line, but what can be said about it is different. The bottom line is that no-one has yet written sensible separate articles about the Crosstown Line' and G service, not that the line and service are identical. For an example of a line/service which seems identical at first blush, but hardly is, see BMT Franklin Avenue Line and S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service). Also, please keep in mind that it would be better not to break the style of separating lines and services just because a very few appear identical. -- Cecropia 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I was not suggesting a merge of G (New York City Subway service) and IND Crosstown Line. I truly do understand that they are different concepts. I was merely pointing out that, at present, there's a large section duplicated between the two. Marc Shepherd 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox question

The infobox for 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) shows 138th Street-Grand Concourse as the next station south (local), with both 4 and 5 service offered.

The infobox for 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) shows 138th Street-Grand Concourse as one of two stations south, but with only 5 service offered.

If I understand the logic of the infobox design, the "south service" and "north_service" are supposed to be coded from the point of view of the station you are writing about. Since 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) is served only by 2 and 5 trains, it should show only where 2 and 5 trains go after they leave the station.

If that is correct, then 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) is coded correctly, and 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) is not. However, a drawback of this approach is that it requires more "hard-coding" in the infoboxes at line merge/diverge points. It is therefore more error-prone (as this very example illustrates).

I would add that perhaps the two 149th–Grand Concourse station articles should be merged into "149th St-Grand Concourse (New York City Subway)," as has been done for a number of other station complexes with identical names. Marc Shepherd 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jerome Avenue infobox is indeed incorrect. The thing about merging the articles is that the problem would not be resolved. See such merged articles as Times Square-42nd Street and 42nd Street-Grand Central (New York City Subway). These still have multiple infoboxes, one for each "station" in the complex. The problem at 149 was not technical error but editor error. I believe this infobox was coded during a period of time where the philosophy of the infobox was different; at that time, all services at the next station were shown, not just the services from the POV of the current station. Thus, the next express south from 149-GC Jerome, 125th St, shows 6 service as well. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick facts boxes?

Someone posted a nice little box with some quick facts about the L. I kinda like it. Can we implement it to other lines? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can get sourced info, I don't see why not. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You're just talking about posting that on the article for the entire line, right? Alphachimp talk 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Closed Captioned) 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's what PCH is talking about, can't be sure. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Next North/Next South Issue

Seidenstud just brought up a great point about our use of the subway station infobox, and a point of possible confusion. In the box, we list the next station north and south, and then different train lines next to that station. We're wondering whether the train lines listed should be:

OR

Either way, we're going to have to change something. What do you guys think (I'm inclined to go with the first scheme, which I think is the prevailing version, btw). αChimp laudare 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This came up a week or so ago (see the topic #Infobox question). The prevailing view is that the second scheme is what the infoboxes are supposed to say. Anywhere that two branches of a line merge — which is precisely the situation here — the standard line templates don't work, and have to be replaced by hard-coded information. The drawback is that when NYCT changes a service pattern, someone has to find all of the places it was hard-coded. Marc Shepherd 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that and thanks for clarifying. I'm not really sure how I missed the convo above. αChimp laudare 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Mark meant by saying that the second scheme is what infoboxes are supposed to say; I believe (as Alphachimp noted) that the first scheme (the next line(s) that actually go to the next station) is the prevailing method. I might have been unclear in my response from the earlier discussion, when I said that "the Jerome Avenue infobox is indeed incorrect." For instance: from 14th St/8th Av, the next station south is obviously West 4th, which is served by these lines: A​, B​, C​, D​, E​, F, <F>​, and M. However, one cannot get to West 4th from 14th/8th using the B, ​D, ​F, <F>, and ​M, only the A, ​C, and ​E. Thus, listing the extra Sixth Av information is not particularly useful. Another benefit of the first method is that the station service information "adds up." Example: the "Services" field for West 4th lists A​, B​, C​, D​, E​, F, <F>​, and M. Its next north lists Eighth Av A, ​C, and ​E, Sixth local F, <F>, and ​M, and Sixth express B and ​D, thus

(A, ​C, and ​E) + (F, <F>, and ​M) + (B and ​D) = A​, B​, C​, D​, E​, F, <F>​, and M

Similarly, next south gives Eighth local A, ​C, and ​E, Eighth express A, and Sixth Av B, ​D, ​F, <F>, and ​M:

(A, ​C, and ​E) + (A) + (B, ​D, ​F, <F>, and ​M) = A​, B​, C​, D​, E​, F, <F>​, and M

Checking the "sums" of each aggregate north/south listing against the "Services" field is a useful way to ensure that services are being depicted correctly. Many times have I saved an article, only to notice that the next north or south didn't "add up," and thus I had used the wrong information somewhere. Anyway, in conclusion, anywhere the second scheme is in place (all services at the next station) is incorrect and should be fixed. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about this question, which probably seems obvious, but I am new to this project and to templates in general. But, if I wanted to change, say, 145th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line) to only include the 3, where do I do such a thing? I might not be looking in the right place, but I don't see this data in the template variables or in the template itself. Where should I be looking? -Seidenstud 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Larry. Is it possible to get dyslexia late in life? I did mean "first." Marc Shepherd 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Marc, can't help you there—I'm not too much of an expert on dyslexia. =) And Seidenstud: I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say "change 145th Street to include only the 3." Are you referring to the "next south" field? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. That is exactly what I am referring to. -Seidenstud 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, currently the infobox coding for 145th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line) is this:
{{Infobox NYCS
| name = 145th Street
| bg_color = #E20F00
| line = IRT Lenox Avenue Line
| service = Lenox north
| platforms = Side platforms
| tracks = 2
| borough = Manhattan
| open_month_day = November 23
| open_year = 1904
| north_station = 148th Street-Lenox Terminal
| north_line = IRT Lenox Avenue Line
| north_service = Lenox north
| south_station = 135th Street
| south_line = IRT Lenox Avenue Line
| south_service = Lenox south
}}
What we're looking at are the "north_service" and "south_service" fields. {{Infobox NYCS}} takes whatever is in those fields, adds "NYCS" to the front, and calls a template using the final string. So for "north_service" (which reads "Lenox north"), the infobox calls a template called {{NYCS Lenox north}}, which produces 3. The purpose of these templates is to facilitate easy adjustment for service changes; if service along a particular line changes, we can change the one template and thus change the info for every article that calls it. A complete list of service templates can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bus Connections CONTINUED

I was starting to cut and past the bus connections thing from the archive, but I decided it might be better just to start fresh here. Anyway, what do you guys think? Should we make a template for bus connections? Alphachimp talk 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean templates like Template:NYCT M100 bus? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Sadly, I do. Alphachimp talk 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's a good idea, but the inherent problem with those is that they are static. They cannot be updated station to station. The M4 runs on Fifth Avenue at some point, yes, but not northbound from 190th Street (to give an example). --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bus Connections...continued (again)

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned my interest in adding bus connections to the subway stations. I finally bit the bullet and produced a sample, just for the entire IND 8th avenue line in Manhattan (A and C from 207-Broadway/Nassau). I'm using a slightly simpler template, based off of Larry V's NYCS bus template. My template is entitled Template:NYCS simplebus. It's ridiculously simple to use, and merely bolds the bus name and assigns it to the depot page (which has route info). I've programmed in AWB (if you even want to call it that) every single bus route to match every single depot in NY (including MTA bus depots). When you type a bolded bus name in an article (e.g. M5), and point AWB to it, it will replace the M5 text with a bolded version linking you to a description of the route on the depot page (see here). This should also make it easier to accomodate bus route changes.

I'm hoping that other people will become interested in adding the bus connections section to their local train line, but, if need be, I could probably do the whole thing myself. Like I said, bold the bus name. If it's a real NYCT or MTA bus, AWB should do the rest. What do you guys think? Alphachimp talk 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice template; just one thing. While you go through the bus depot changes, make sure that the heading for the routes page (e.g., "Bus routes served by the…") is exactly in that format. That is, "Bus routes served by the <title of page>", with exactly the same capitalization. I've found a few that maybe capitalize "routes" and thus don't work with the template. Feel free to edit them to make them fit. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I will do that. Thanks for the heads up. Alphachimp talk 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know much about MTA bus, just NYCT bus, but check this out (Far Rockaway Bus Depot = John F. Kennedy Bus Depot). I found it last night when I was listing the bus lines in AWB. It looks like Far Rockaway changed its name to JFK, but I can't find any internet records to that effect. Any ideas? Alphachimp talk 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They're different depots. Far Rock is in the Rockaways, while JFK is in South Jamaica. Basically, the former Green Bus Lines operated all of their routes from JFK and used Far Rock as a satellite depot, which is why the route tables are exactly the same. It wasn't as if some routes operated from JFK and some from Far Rock; all routes were serviced at both depots. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As a note, I've finished the 1 and A trains so far. Alphachimp talk 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


A/C split

I've finished splitting A-C (New York City Subway service) into A (New York City Subway service) and C (New York City Subway service), although each probably needs work. Also, "What links here" for A-C (New York City Subway service) is still showing hundreds of articles—maybe from Template:NYCS navbox, although I edited it. I have no idea why it's showing up like that, but they link properly, so I suppose it's okay. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, there might be something wrong with that "What links here", either on the servers or with my local machine. Anyone else see anything under that link? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, forget it altogether, it looks like the changes to the navbox were taking a while to replicate across the servers. Looks good now. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've updated all links to the original A-C page to point to the correct place. Marc Shepherd 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice job Marc and Larry. You were popping up all over my watchlist today. alphaChimp laudare 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility, a primer

I'm in the midst of a long project to ensure that each station's accessibility status is properly reflected in the articles. This is a very lengthy and tedious process. I thought it would be worthwhile to record all the places that need to be checked whenever a station becomes newly-accessible:

  1. The article New York City Subway accessibility needs to be updated
  2. In the article for the station, "accessible = yes" needs to be set in the infobox
  3. If this station has free transfers to any other station, then the other station's infobox must have "transfer_station_acc = yes" (or "transfer_station_2_acc = yes").
  4. In the articles for the station(s) immediately south of this station, the infoboxes need to be updated with "north_station_acc = yes," "north_local_station_acc = yes," or "north_express_station_acc = yes," as appropriate. Likewise for the station(s) immediately north. If the next station is "hard-coded" (i.e., "north_custom_station," or the like), then indicate accessibility with: {{Access icon}}.
  5. In the article for the line on which the station resides, the station needs to be shown as accessible in the tabular station listing. (Some of the articles for NYCS lines don't yet indicate accessible stations, but eventually they all will.)
  6. In the article for each service that visits the station, the station needs to be shown as accessible in the tabular station listing. (Some of the articles for NYCS services don't yet indicate accessible stations, but eventually they all will.)

(Note: For every infobox parameter that accepts "yes" for accessibility, there is also the option of entering "northbound" or "southbound" if the station is accessible in only one direction.)

As you can see, there are a lot of coordinated updates that need to take place whenever a station is renovated for accessibility. Perhaps it's no surprise that, for the majority of accessible stations, these were not coded correctly. I think I've made it through all of them now, hopefully without making any mistakes. I've posted this so that others will be aware of all the places that need to be checked, as it's quite easy to miss something. Marc Shepherd 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a version of the above to WP:NYCS, so that it will be available for reference after this discussion topic is eventually archived. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Question

Why aren't we linking to MTA New York City Transit buses in the "Other NYC Transit Section"? alphaChimp laudare 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean the {{NYCS navbox}} at the bottom of each article. I cannot think of a good reason why buses are not there.
Alright. It has been added. I've made some changes to shrink the infobox a little bit in width. Do you guys think that we should add the line logos to the template? (It'd be a ton of transclusion, but it might make the template a little more noticeable.) alphaChimp laudare 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not. The bullets are licensed freely, so not many things standing in the way. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the burden of the transclusions would be too high? It might affect people with slow connections. The images appear to be about 30 kb each. alphaChimp laudare 03:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so. They don't seem to screw up the nomenclature page. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 04:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Station service

I will be working on recreating on the list of station service seen on New York City Subway service pages. I will add three columns, with titles as Stations/cross streets. lClick here for an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs)

I would suggest that you try one service and put it out there as an example for discussion, before changing others. Marc Shepherd 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Call me a fool, but I really don't understand the purpose of copying transit's chart from their site. I'd really like to see an example (per Marc) alphaChimp laudare 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, contrary to my and alphaChimp's suggestion, User:Imdanumber1 has implemented his idea on three services (S - Rockaway Park Shuttle, S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle, and S - 42nd Street Shuttle). He has also left three additional services — 1, 5, and L — in a state of disarray, with changes only partly done.
I have reverted the changes to 1, 5, and L. I suggest that we:
  1. Discuss whether we like User:Imdanumber1's alternative before other articles are changed; and,
  2. If there is consensus that changes are beneficial, that they are made one article at a time, instead of leaving multiple articles in an {{underconstruction}} state. Marc Shepherd 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see the usefulness of changing the current table format. Please explain what is inadequate about the current table format, and what benefits the new one brings. Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What I see from Imdanumber1's proposal is that:

  • Columns in the station table are being re-ordered. I don't see how this is an improvement. The original order seemed superior.
  • Subway connections are listed in a highly verbose way. For instance, this:
1 all times, 2 all times, 3, all times except late nights, 7 all times, A all times, C all times except late nights, E all times, N all times, Q all times, R all times except late nights, W weekdays

rather than this:

1, ​2, and ​3 7 and <7>​ S N, ​Q, ​R, and ​W A, ​C, and ​E
Port Authority Bus Terminal
  • Bus and rail connections are shown in a separate column. In the original format, there was a single column for all connections (subway or other transit), and bus connections weren't shown.

The third of Imdanumber1's changes is the only one I see as arguably meritorious. However, I am definitely concerned about how the bus connection information would be kept up-to-date. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and bus routes (unlike train routes) are highly manipulable. Also, many of the individual station articles now have bus connections too, so that makes another thing that has to be changed in multiple places whenever there is new information. I don't really see the typical user relying on Wikipedia for bus connections, so I wouldn't put that information in multiple places that will tend to get outdated. Marc Shepherd 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.
  1. I do feel that the original order is superior. In the new table, the way in which service time is placed in the leftmost column distracts the eye from the most important column, which is the station name column. The only reason I moved the accessibility icon to the leftmost column (way back in the day) is because the data for the column is given by a small icon, and is thus unobtrusive.
  2. The connection information is very verbose.
  3. Wikipedia isn't the place to put all this bus connection information. The train/rail connections document a physical and (for the most part) unchangeable aspect of New York's transportation infrastructure; service info for trains can easily be changed through service templates. Bus information cannot be changed so easily. In a strange fashion, here I am "disagreeing" with you, Marc — the problem is that the bus information is highly unmanipulable, while the train info can easily be changed if need be. (Word play is so much fun.) Bus information is somewhat useful when it documents connections to airports, but even that isn't critical, in my view. Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Marc, I see you are concerned about bus connection s, and how they will be kept up to date. However, I will keep a lookout for new maps and see that they will stay up to date. But I need opinions on whether you like my changes to the three shuttles. This will determine if the other lines will be changed or not. --imdanumber1 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Another concern is that the new table is far more bloated than the former table. For instance, at S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service), the original table spanned half the page (on my screen). The current version takes up the entire width of the screen and is very difficult to read. I'll have to say that I don't like the new table. Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The width of the table can be changed quite easily. --imdanumber1 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but I strongly agree with Larry V's assessment. On the topic of bus connections, I don't know the half-life of a Wikipedia editor, but the appropriateness of this information can't depend on a particular person's promise to keep it updated. Fundamentally, I am hard-pressed to imagine very many people who would regard Wikipedia as their source for bus connections.
I would note that, in the three articles you've modified, handicapped accessibility is no longer recorded correctly. It just goes to show how easily these things can get out of sync. (See the discussion topic earlier on this page, describing all of the places that need to be updated when a station's accessibility status changes.) Marc Shepherd 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Changing the width would not solve the problem. The issue isn't the width of the table, per se — it's the bloat and verbosity of the new table. It is somewhat difficult to extract information from the table. Rather taking than a mere glance, one must actually read the table. It's far too wordy. Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Larry, I will have to agree that yes, the tables are kind of verbose/wordy, but I believe that to the readers, extra information for them getting around in the city will suffice. I will have to say that we still need to know whether or not will this table go on other subway service pages. But as long as people understand what they are reading and as long as information is kep up-to-date, it shouldn't matter what the condition of the article is, as long as there are no defects. --imdanumber1 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree.
  • Yes, correctness is of utmost importance; however, presentation and ease-of-use is not to be lightly thrown aside. The new table is very difficult to use because it requires having to "reading" the table, rather than just "looking up" information. The method in which transfer information is given is especially verbose. Look at the tables from the MTA website. They are not at all hard to use. They use icons in place of long verbiage in the style of "all times except late nights (12:30-5:30)". However, they do omit time information and simply list services.
  • Wikipedia is hardly the go-to source for travel information in New York City, so it is not terribly important to include complete bus connection information.
  • There is nothing wrong with the current tables, which are correct, concise, and (for the most part) easy-to-use. Since there are no problems with the current system, there is no need to rush the decision. Maintain the status quo until a thorough decision can be made on this. Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it Marc, you just think that I am not taking any of this seriously. Well I am! It's not my fault; we all don't have to agree. But when it gets really critical, like it is getting now, everyone think that I am now wasting time over this. I have a bunch of ideas for this WikiProject, but now I just feel like I do not belong apart of it, and everyone is against my decision, just because (probably) I haven't been apart of the Wikipedian commnity for so long, or maybe it is because people are considering me a fool just because of my ideas. Well let the voters decide. Gather all of the Wikipedians contributing to this Wikiproject and let them vote on whether they like my changes or not to the shuttles. A decision must be made so this quarrelling can end. Man, I wish I was an admin now! --imdanumber1 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No one is making any sort of personal assault on you, imdanumber1. Trust me, I've been working with Marc and Alphachimp for quite some time now, and they are not ones to oppose an idea for petty reasons such as those you suggested. Given good ideas and good reasoning, they will consider any proposal. The plain and simple truth has nothing to do with you — we simply feel that the previous table is superior to your suggested table. We have repeatedly offered clear, logical reasons as to why we think so; what more can we do to make our position clear? One problem is that you tend to make controversial, unilateral edits in the midst of discussions. For instance, you started a discussion on the name of the article on 42nd Street-Grand Central. This was good; discussion is how things like that should start. However, you then went and made the change anyway, while we were still discussing it! That's not how discussions are supposed to work; you might as well have not even started the discussion. You have to let discussions run to their conclusions; you also have to take things less personally. Again, no one here has a vendetta against you or anything. However, if we don't like your idea, we have to say so. Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Larry, yes, I have been a little hyped up, and yes, I know that things can't always go the way it is intended. However, I still want to play a part of this WikiProject. As long as a conclusion is reached, then things can work out well, even if it isn't how you planned it. --imdanumber1 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Larry, hope you don't mind as I have nominated you for adminship. Your work is excellent, and I hope you make the cut.

imdanumber1, I'd suggest that you make some edits while staying within the project structure as it exists, rather than proposing significant changes to the structure. I am suggesting this, not because I think the structure is perfect, but because someone who has worked within the structure is in a better position to credibly recommend improvements.
For starters, there are hundreds of New York City Subway articles currently classified as New York City Subway stubs. Try improving some of them, to the point that they would no longer be stubs? Or, add station tables to the line/service articles that lack them – but following the structure of the existing articles rather than proposing a new one. Marc Shepherd 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed up the article tables on the three shuttles to make it a little less wordy. Hope this helps. --imdanumber1 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

A survey is being held regarding to the changes of the subway line informtion table that me, imdanumber1, made on the following three articles: the (S - Rockaway Park Shuttle, S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle, and S - 42nd Street Shuttle). If you like the new table, please vote by saying Support. If you like the original table, say Oppose. If you don't care either way, say, Neutral. Don't forget to type a description as to why you have voted, followed by your signature and a timestamp. All Wikipedians who are working on this WikiProject must vote in order for a decision to be made. A conclusion will be reached deciding on majority. Voting ends on Saturday at 12 p.m. Thank you for your cooperation. --imdanumber1 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Support
Strong Support. It is my recreation; have to go with it. --imdanumber1 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. I stated my reasons above, but in brief: (1) the new column order is not as user-friendly as the original one; (2) the service listing is too verbose; and (3) I do not think bus connections should be included. Marc Shepherd 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as per Marc. I feel that the current style is better, more streamlined and concise, and easier to use. There is no need to show bus information (the oft-quoted "Wikipedia is not a timetable"). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nothing personal. Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Marc and Larry. I really just don't see the pressing need to reformat it. The current form is just fine. alphaChimp laudare 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution: It appears that "Oppose" has prevailed. Marc Shepherd 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

North/South Infobox Issue

I find it very confusing when viewing infoboxes on subway station articles. They all show North and South! Shouldn't they show East and West as well? --imdanumber1 16:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Most of our lines run in an uptown or downtown direction (correlated with Manhattan). Giving 4 directions would be entirely confusing and would not work for most stations. alphaChimp laudare 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AlphaChimp. Marc Shepherd 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, I find it all very confusing. Some of the lines shift direction. For example, heading north, the Bowery station, a part of the Nassau Street Line, shifts direction before Essx Street. Despite most routes that head north and south, some don't, like the 42nd Street Shuttle and the Flushing Line. --imdanumber1 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The official NYCT system is to use Uptown and Downtown to indicate the directions of trains. I don't think it's appropriate to completely reformat the infobox to represent said directions. Remember, you're always welcome to add any information relative to the switches in line direction to the individual station article. alphaChimp laudare 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
General policy for railroads in general is to define one direction on a line as "railroad north" and the opposite direction as "railroad south," or one as "railroad west" and the other as "railroad east." This is to provide an easy way to describe direction of travel without dealing with conflicts or other snags which would arise if geographic directions were used. The New York City Subway uses north/south (or within Manhattan, uptown/downtown) because most Manhattan mainlines run roughly north and south. Plus, take Bowery as an example. I should think it would be more confusing to show "Next south" and "Next east." Using north/south clearly signifies that the stations shown are in opposite directions on the line. –Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Almost any substitution for north/south would be a cure worse than the disease. Even the (mostly) British use of "up" and "down" lines ("up" toward the CBD and "down" away) wouldn't work because this system is designed for CBD terminals, not through-routes. Plus the "north/south" has verifiability, since the track numbering scheme indicates railroad directions on the NYC system. -- Cecropia 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. --imdanumber1 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

42nd Street-Grand Central issue

The 42nd Street-Grand Central page should be moved to Grand Central-42nd Street, since it is shown on maps in PDF format on the MTA Website. --imdanumber1 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet, signs all over the station read "42nd St-Grand Central". Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What should we do? There are a lot of contradictions as to what should be done. --imdanumber1 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on the talk page for that station, the MTA isn't consistent. Whichever name you choose will conflict with some of the existing literature. I therefore see no need to change it.
I do believe that if the MTA adopts a consistent name in their published literature (maps, timetables, website), that is the name we should use. Many stations have had different names over the years, and the MTA is the final authority over what they are called today.
But where the MTA themselves haven't been consistent, changing it on Wikipedia would just introduce upheaval for no good reason. Marc Shepherd 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Important: I see that, although nobody supported the move and two people opposed it, imdanumber1 has gone ahead and moved it anyway. I myself am not able to revert this change, or else I would. Marc Shepherd 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Larry and Marc. I really don't think it's a good idea to change the name to the format from the PDF file, given the consistencies of a) train announcements, b) station markings. alphaChimp laudare 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it shouldn't matter as to what the name of the article is. I am going with what the MTA map says in PDF, along with station maps. Doesn't anyone think that the station signage is outdated for chrissakes!? I mean, if you notice, the MTA isn't so precise with signage as they are with the map. --imdanumber1 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Alphachimp, train announcements, such as the R142s say "This is Grand Central-42nd Street."

Okay, for all practical purposes, this isn't a terribly urgent problem. "Let's see, which is better, '42nd Street-Grand Central' or 'Grand Central-42nd Street'?" Does anyone else think that this is a tad trivial? It isn't as if "42nd Street-Grand Central" is wrong or anything. And in my opinion, if there isn't a clear concensus to make a change, maintaining the status quo can never hurt, as long as the status quo is correct. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And imdanumber1: Please don't make unilateral moves like you just did with the Grand Central article. One of the purposes of discussion pages is for making community decisions about controversial issues, not for introducing a potentially controversial topic, then making a decision yourself and implementing it while others are talking about it. Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Larry, Marc, and aChimp on this one. Names are often inconsistent with the MTA. Have you checked GO notices? And the R142A's also still say Parkchester-East 177th Street. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The MTA may make changes on The Map sometimes, and that's fine. It may be for simple clarification or whatever. However, if it really cares about the station's name, then it will change the signage. For instance, it recently standardized all signage at the Broadway Junction complex to emphasize its existence as a single transit hub; a similar resignage occured at Atlantic Av-Pacific St. It is in the process of doing this at Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues. It did this at Sutphin Boulevard/Archer Avenue to make extra-clear the distinction between that station and Sutphin/Hillside—likewise at Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer. The fact is, when the MTA makes a change to The Map, it really isn't that big of a deal. This whole thing is not that big of a deal. Again, I say let it stand as is. Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But it shouldn't matter, although I'm going with what the map says. --imdanumber1 03:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, even PCH's example would be more of an issue that Grand Central. With Parkchester, they chopped off a whole part of the station name. With GC, they're just switching around the two parts ("42nd St" and "GC"). Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1-9 New york city subway service

I am thinking of splitting the 1 and 9 articles. They don't have the same history prior to 1989, and I think the lines shoul be seperated. Need opinions. --imdanumber1 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the line-by-line history, 9 was used for Dyre Avenue service from 1941–57. That is about all you can say about it until 1988, when it re-appears for skip-stop service with the 1. Once it returns in its skip-stop guise, the history of the 9 is inextricably linked with the 1. That is also how 99% of people remember it. Splitting out the 9 as a separate article will simply create another redundant page in which much of the information is duplicated.
As it is, there is far too much redundancy between the various IRT service pages (except the 7). The problem is that terminals and local/express patterns were swapped many times, so each article for the 1 thru 6 presents a lot of the same information. (On top of that, the numbers didn't even appear on printed maps until 1967.)
Let's not break it up even further. Marc Shepherd 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot of redundancy with the articles. 100% with you, should leave as is. --imdanumber1 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't always rely on NYC Subway for subway station info and transit history

NYC Subway's information doesn't always count as a citable source for subway information. It is useful, but shouldn't always be depended on. I am saying this because a lot of station article's desciptions come from the site. --imdanumber1 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the history is that a lot of the station articles were thrown up rather quickly, using text at nycsubway.org as a starting point. This was helpful because A) the information was all in one place; and B) the nycsubway.org people gave permission for the text to be liberally re-used. If better information has come to hand, the articles should be updated. Marc Shepherd 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
nycsubway.org is an excellent resource and is generally correct in the information it provides. However, always take it with a grain of salt. The biggest problem I've come across is its array of opening dates. Many stations have opening dates listed on their pages that contradict other articles on the very same site. Cecropia and I had a conversation a little while ago (somewhere on my talk page) about their lack of accuracy regarding opening dates on the BMT Brighton Line, which has a complex history and did not open as a single line at one time. Same for the IND Rockaway Line. The dates given there for the Rockaway stations are the dates that subway service first opened. This is not necessarily what we want for our "Date opened" fields, which should document the date that the current physical station opened - any other info should be added with notes. Sometimes, it looks like someone applies a single date to an entire line, without checking first. For instance, 23rd St-Ely Av on the Queens Boulevard Line opened after the stations between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Avenue, but the site gives identical dates. Another article within the same site provides the correct date.
In conclusion, nycsubway.org is great, but the people who make it are human too, which means that they can (and do) make mistakes. Keep an eye open. Hell, if you find something wrong, email the webmaster there! I've done it before, and he's more than willing to correct errors. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Marc, I think I recall reading a discussion about this between you and Cecropia. And yes Larry, we aren't all perfect. This may seem unusual, but maybe the MTA has info about the history of the subway and station openings. Rumor has it that they do, according to a talk page (not Wikipedia) I read some time ago. It may be weird to ask the MTA, but might as well give it a shot asking them since they should know about their system, don't you think? --imdanumber1 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the IND Rockaway Line, it does show when the line and station opened to subway use. I should have looked up some history on its previous owner (which is the LIRR) as me and Larry V contributed to creating the IND Rockaway Line page (check the history) since it was a red link for some time. All I knew was that the line opened in 1892 to the LIRR, abandoned by it in 1950, and opened to the IND in 1956.

If you check the station table on the IRT Dyre Avenue Line, it shows when the line opened to tis previous owner and the current owner. I will try looking up some info about when the stations opened to the LIRR on the present Rockaway Line. --imdanumber1 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Save the Q

Some idiot has just proposed Q for deletion, claiming its existence is a hoax. I assume he's a close relation to guy who keeps telling us about the September 9, 2006, service changes. Anyhow, please click through and vote Keep on the deletion proposal. Marc Shepherd 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Q has been saved, in one of the speediest keeps I've seen (under four hours). Marc Shepherd 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It should have been speedier, IMHO. What a ridiculous proposal. alphaChimp laudare 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_2&oldid=1136049076"