Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Recent activity?

Hey, so again I've been really inundated with schoolwork… if someone could find the time to update me on the major happenings here since Mark Shepherd left, that would be great. I've tried to read through this talk page, but it gets a little overwhelming, especially if you haven't been following things as they progress. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Larry,

Glad to hear from you. We've eased up the storm here, and we are moving on into new ideas and such. Currently, the project is quiet, but if you have any ideas, bring it to our attention. It's great to discuss things in detail! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there's been some debate over service templates and such. What's the "final" verdict on that? Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many different templates are still being used. Although the NYCS templates are the main ones, there are some that are being used, becoming redundant. If you'd like, post an opinion above to help reach a consensus on what to do. --69.112.104.162 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that Template:NYCS navbox uses colors for the service letters. This sort of thing has already been frowned upon in places such as here; why was this change made? (On another note, I'm very surprised that no one's made any changes to Template:Infobox NYCS during my long absence. I suppose that means I did a pretty good job with it? Hehe … I'm archiving this talk page to Archive 3, by the way. It seems as if the dates on the archives are a little screwy, but whatever.) Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there are still a lot of stations with hardcoded infoboxes, though. – flamurai (t) 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was referring more to the template's edit history, where no one has changed anything except a minor categorization. Anyway, where are some of these articles? I'd like to weed them out. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First, no one really talked about it here, but someone added colors to the navbox, but no one objected. Me and PCH made some corrections. Flamurai used colors from Template:NYCS color. I actually thought it was fine, because no one objected to use colors in the navbox. I myself don't see why not to. Besides, the past is all behind us, and since we are moving on to new ideas, don't be afraid to implement new options for the project. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for new ideas and such, but only if they make significant contributions to the usability of the project. I don't see the colors doing this.

• Saying "the past is all behind us" is great, if you want to end a feud or grudge. But there's always something to be learned from the past. This had been brought up a long time ago, and rejected. There had to have been a reason, right?
• Using colors for links is generally tacky and unsightly. But even discounting personal opinions, it messes with people's preconceived notions of links. For the vast majority of people, links are blue. Period. You see blue text among a sea of black, it's a hyperlink. With the colors, that's not so readily apparent. Sure, one could just mouse over the letters and see for oneself—but that shouldn't be necessary. Differently-colored links, unless all links are the same color, smacks of bad web design and poor usability.
• What do these colors mean to people outside of New York? Sure you and I recognize the service letters partially through their colors, but what do they mean to others? The colors mean a lot less in the New York City system than in other systems. Here in Boston, for instance, the colors mean everything—that's why the lines are named after the colors. In New York, they could flip all the colors around and relatively few people would care. Sure, it'd be disorienting at first, but if the letters remained the same, relatively few people would have problems. In addition… where are colored letters actually used? Where does one see F, A, or 4 without accompanying circle? On MTA maps, underneath station names, the service letters are given… in black.

What I'm basically saying is that the colors detract from the project more than they add. The detractions come mainly in the form of poor web design and decreased usability. Using the colors adds very little if any value. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good explanation, Larry, I never knew people would think about it that way. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NYCS Templates, revisited

Regarding the templates business, I think the best idea would be to use the {{NYCS|_______}} format and keep it separate from {{NYCS service}}. We don't want to create an all-encompassing mega-template that will become difficult to maintain. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Using NYCS service has all the proper parameters, including a parameter for Subst:NYCS time. I'm just trying to make it easier on us. I also think that with a universal template like this, we don't need all of the other service templates. I think that a universal template works better, and since Cyde Weys brought it up originally, it seems like a good idea. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to use just one of them, wouldn't it be nicer to rename it {{NYCS}}, to make for less typing? The current Template:NYCS doesn't seem to be used anywhere. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd also like to create a universal template for the subway lines. I created a template called {{NYCS line}}, currently sitting unused, but I'd like to reconfigure it. We need to cut down on the templates (mostly services), and {{NYCS service}} comes in here. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of {{NYCS line}} is. It just seems to call {{NYCS}}. What sort of context are you thinking about using it in? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure really (I need to read on parserfunctions), but I just created it until I could get help. But if we can create a switch statement for it or whatnot, then that'd be great. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, what we have to do is not make any more templates and have a discussion on what templates we need, and for what purpose. We need to clearly define what {{NYCS service}} will be used for, what {{NYCS}} will be used for, what {{NYCS line}} will be used for, and so on. Then we can decide how to construct each template to do its job as well as it can. We really don't want to use too many parser functions. For example, take a look at the coding of Template:Infobox NYCS. Take it from me, let's minimize the complexity of the templates. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{NYCS service}} is for the services (respectively) and is already being used, and work will need to be done on {{NYCS line}} for line usage, and the {{NYCS}} would be for backup purposes (to be honest, I don't really know what I mean by that). Besides, that {{Infobox NYCS}} is a killer whe it comes to parserfunctions. One bad edit, and hundreds of the articles in the main namespace are screwed up at once. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound picky, but you'll have to be more specific than that. Provide possible outputs that the templates might produce (you don't have to specify exact parameters or anything, but general ideas of what you want to the template to produce). And regarding {{Infobox NYCS}}, that's exactly why I'd love it if no one edited it. Ever. If someone has an idea, tell me. I doubt anyone besides me knows what's going on inside that template, and half the time I'm not too sure that I know either. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll fill you in with the parameters for {{NYCS service}} and {{NYCS line}} first thing in the morning, the list will be a little wordy. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Because the infobox is used on so many articles, it should be protected or semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Also, an optional parameter for the infobox should be a closed date, to let people know when the station closed. A lot of closed station articles use a standard infobox, not the NYCS-coded one. And as of this edit, its my birthday.

• You don't have to explain the templates, I just took a look at both of them, and they seem pretty simple. I don't see what {{NYCS line}} does that {{NYCS service}} can't, though.
• I'll try to add that closed parameter as soon as I have time. I have finals this week, and things are pretty hectic.
• Happy birthday =)

—Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know I don't have to give you a description of the parameters, but I will anyway, to sum things up, and to make sure we're on the right page. Anyway, talk to ya later, --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that'll be quite helpful, thanks. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For {{NYCS service}}, there are three parameters:

• The first parameter is for inputting the subway service. For example, Input {{NYCS service|5}} and it will render 5 (New York City Subway service). Some cases we have to type out the shuttle service code, so we just type in [[S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service)|]]

• However, the second parameter is not optional to leave out. After we put in the first code, we add another pipe and put in the next. The second parameter is like typing [[7 (New York City Subway service)|7]]. Some cases there is a diamond service, so we type {{NYCS service|6|<6>}} and it renders <6>.

• The third parameter is optional, meaning if we have to add time period details, we add another pipe and fill in the third parameter. Example: We type in {{NYCS service|7|<7>|1a2a3c}} and it will render <7> ^(1a2a3c).

And since this template could replace the other service template if a consensus is reached, then templates like {{NYCS time}} would be deleted.

Now, here's my idea for {{NYCS line}}:

This template could be a giant switch template. If we type {{NYCS line|Sixth}}, we would get B ^(123a) D F V ⁽¹²³⁾. Some would render simple output ({{NYCS line|Canarsie}} would render L) and some would render fairly verbose output, such as inputting {{NYCS line|Times Square}} would render 1 2 3  ⁽¹²³⁴⁾ 7 <7>  ^(1a2a3c) A C  ⁽¹²³⁴⁾ E N Q R  ⁽¹²³⁴⁾ S  ⁽¹²³⁴⁾ W  ^(123a). An invalid input would not render anything. If possible, we could add a brief note to describe the syntaxes of each template. That said, hope this helps. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

These are pretty good ideas; I just have a couple of points.

• From what I see, there isn't much demand for 5 (New York City Subway service) and similar constructions. 5 is far more common, and I think it would be more useful if {{NYCS service|5}} produced 5. Full-length usage is rare enough that hard-coding would suffice.
• I'm not too sure I like the idea of {{NYCS line}}. It tries to do too much at once. All of the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates would have to be concatenated into this enormous, unwieldy, bug-prone template. Combining the simple templates (e.g., {{NYCS B}}) is one thing; this is a little over-the-top.

—Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

I think I was a little unclear at first, so let me explain again for purposes of clarity, at least for the {{NYCS service}} template:

• The {{NYCS service}} template has two parameters, with an optional third parameter. The first and second parameters are like typing '''[[5 (New York City Subway service)]]''' but instead we use the template code instead of the hard code (example: {{NYCS service|5|5}} renders 5. In some cases we can create shuttle services (example: {{NYCS service|S - 42nd Street Shuttle|S}} renders S. In some cases we can create diamond services (example: {{NYCS service|7|<7>}} renders <7>.

• The third parameter is optional, meaning if we need to add time period details, we just add another pipe (example: {{NYCS service|7|<7>|1a2a3c}} renders <7> ^(1a2a3c)).

As for the {{NYCS line}} template, I will work on implememting the switch method at my sandbox subpage. If you'd like to help, feel free. Thanks. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

{{NYCS service}} seems fine. Regarding {{NYCS line}}: My concern is not that the template can't be created or maintained, but that it shouldn't be created and maintained. Take a look at the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates. There are dozens upon dozens of them; each has a unique name for a unique section of subway. Now, let's say we take all of those and put them into one big switch template. First of all, thats dozens upon dozens of switches, each of which must be coded again. Second, what if we decide to change what we call a certain segment of subway? For instance, at one point the section of the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line between Chambers Street and the merge with the IRT Lexington Avenue Line in Brooklyn used the template {{NYCS Brooklyn}} (as in, IRT Brooklyn Branch). At some point, it was decided that the "Brooklyn Branch" wasn't a proper name for that line, and perhaps "Brooklyn branch of the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line" was better—hence the current name, {{NYCS Broadway-Seventh Brooklyn}}. It was fairly simple to track down and correct all articles using the previous name, and any that were missed happened to reference the correct name anyway, via redirects. Now, let's say that the same situation happened with this mega-template. We change the name in the switch; now any article that used the old name is broken. There is no easy way to track down the articles that use the switch, since "What links here" includes every article that links to the template, regardless of the switch called. We could leave the old switch as a legacy measure, but in that case the template keeps getting bigger every time we make a change. This new {{NYCS line}} will not contribute enough value to the project for the amount of time creating and maintaining it will take. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I'll just use {{NYCS service}} and have it replace the other templates.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have the line template nominated for deletion. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated {{NYCS line}} for deletion. I believe that after Larry's POV, the template would be too much a handful, and therefore unnecessary. Larry does agree using {{NYCS service}}, since the parameters wouldn't create stress or upheaval. I suggest clicking through {{NYCS line}} to vote. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So Larry, you want me to replace the other templates yet, with the new syntax being {{NYCS service|Foo|Foo|Foo}} and replaces {{NYCS Foo}}. possibly replacing {{Subst:NYCS time|Foo}}? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. To reduce typing, I've edited the template so that most calls to the template can simply be something like {{NYCS service|5}}, which produces 5, rather than the somewhat redundant {{NYCS service|5|5}}. To produce 5 ⁽⁵⁾, one can use {{NYCS service|5||5}}, leaving the second parameter blank (if one wishes to). Just a little more flexible.

Actually, I had three parameters for a reason. The two non-optional parameters were there for a reason. In some cases we can create shuttle services (example: {{NYCS service|S - 42nd Street Shuttle|S}} renders S. In some cases we can create diamond services (example: {{NYCS service|7|<7>}} renders <7>. That's why I had two parameters with the optional third parameter. I know the second parameter is redundant, but because the diamond and shuttle services will be needed. We can't create {{NYCS service|<6>}} it will render a red link. Sorry, but I will have to reinstate the previous version for the reason(s) I've given above. And as for the TFD for NYCS line, it should end on Saturday (usually TFD's end one week after; it might end early). --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see what you are trying to do, I think. But can you clarify what you did to the parameters, just so I can get an idea of what you did? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I get it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the template by author request (as Imdanumber1 put up the TfD). alphachimp. 05:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Station complexes

(Again, yes I know, I'm sorry.) I have to take issue with a few of the "station complex" articles that have been created. Specifically Jackson Heights-74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue (New York City Subway), but there are certainly others that I have not seen. I know there was some consensus to merge some of the articles, but this is ridiculous. "Jackson Heights-74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue"? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My fault. This name was chosen because it was on the printed/PDF map (see that thing that looks like a bubble that shows the bus and rail connections). I prefer using the map's names for several reasons.

1. The map is current as of October, and it is updated every three months as service changes and train expectancies warrant. The map was last updated in October, but was issued in stations in September. The map always have accessibility first, and usually, when a station becomes ADA-compliant, the signage has to be updated.
2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an archival database. Most of the article names reflect station signage. This is not the best idea because station signage is outdated. Station signage is really inconsistent, and just causes more problems. The map, as it is the most-updated piece of MTA information, is the best way to go.
3. We are always worried about making sure that our article and accessibility information is correct. But if we look at the map every time it gets updated, then we'll know that our information stays correct.

Without heavy use of the map, keeping up-to-date would be a nightmare. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, I'm more or less OK with using the map as a rule-of-thumb. This is alright for the vast majority of cases. However, I have a couple of issues with it.

• Who says that Wikipedia isn't an archival database? Lists of old station names wouldn't be the best encyclopedic articles, but don't encyclopedias record history? Stations' prior names are part of their histories. Maybe the titles shouldn't reflect outdated signage; the articles certainly should mention old names.
• It is certainly true that some station signage is outdated; no doubt about it (e.g., "East 143rd Street"). But if the MTA really cares about changing a station's name, it will change the station signage, as well as website information and perhaps line map info on trains. Broadway Junction comes to mind as a huge complex, consolidated under one name. Parkchester comes to mind as a station named after a street that had been dead for over 40 years (East 177th Street had been obliterated by the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway).
• Some areas of the map require longer station names to be reduced, for the sake of space—downtown Brooklyn, for instance. Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets and Hoyt Street-Fulton Mall are obvious examples.
• I don't like using the bubbles at all; they tend to represent areas rather than stations, and thus I think are far less useful for naming than the map's actual station labels are.
  • George Washington Bridge Bus Station, 175 St/181 St – two separate stations, focus here is on the bus terminal
  • Port Authority Bus Terminal – leaves off "42nd Street," focus is on the bus terminal
  • Penn Station – encompasses both the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line station and the IND Eighth Avenue Line station, focus is on the rail station
  • City Hall, Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall – two clearly separate stations, focus is on the City Hall area
  • Jackson Heights, 74 St–Roosevelt Av – terribly awkward name, focus is clearly on the bus station there
  • Woodhaven Blvd, Queens Center – "Queens Center" doesn't appear anywhere except the interactive map on the MTA's website, focus is on the mall
  • Jamaica–169 St/179 St – two separate stations, focus is on that length of Hillside Avenue
  • Jamaica Center – leaves off "Parsons/Archer," focus is on the Jamaica Center area
  • Jamaica—Sutphin Blvd – "Jamaica" is almost never used in reference to that subway station, and "Archer Av" almost always is, focus is on the LIRR station
  • Queens Plaza, Queensboro Plaza – two separate stations, focus is on the Plaza area
  • Court St/Borough Hall, Jay St–Borough Hall - two separate stations, focus is on the Borough Hall area
  • Atlantic Av/Atlantic Av–Pacific St – clearly considered two separate stations (even though it's really three!), although I have no qualms with the merging of this particular complex
  • 86 St/4 Av – nice for clarity, but "4 Av" is never used in reference to this station
  • Bay Pkwy/86 St – see above
  • Kings Hwy/E 16 St – see above
  • Euclid Av/Pitkin Av – see above
  • Far Rockaway – leaves off "Mott Av"
• From Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: "If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." I would imagine that this applies loosely to station names. I know we're not inventing the stations, per se, but something like "Lexington Avenue-51st Street" comes close. I have never seen that name anywhere in the real world; it is, for all practical purposes, an invention. We can't make up station names just so we can merge complexes. If the stations' names are the same, fine. If they're not, and they haven't been combined somewhere verifiable, then we can't/shouldn't use them.

—Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This sounds very familiar. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree:

Yes, the MTA will change the names if necessary. But they can't cover every aspect of their system. I'm telling you, station signage is the least of their worries. The MTA has to deal with fare hikes, budget cuts, and improving their system. They're extending the G to Church Avenue starting in Spring. They're finishing up work on the new South Ferry terminal. They're making hundreds of stations ADA-compliant. They're putting in effect the 7 line extension to the Jacob Javits Center.

The point is, maybe the MTA wants to change signage, but things sometimes get the short end of the stick, and the fact of the matter is: they just don't have the time for tedious issues. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Encyclopedia's content should stay up-to-date as possible. Station signage reflects the past.

This is not about station signage. This is about making names up. "Lexington Avenue-51st Street" is made up. "Court Street/Borough Hall" is made up. And made up stuff is a huge no-no. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To Pacific Coast Highway: I noticed your past objection to it, but there didn't seem to be a discussion following it. So I thought I'd bring it up again.

To Imdanumber1: I think you misunderstand me. I don't want to change all the articles back to station signage. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't blindly follow the map. I'll clarify the main ideas of each of my points, in the order of my last post.

• This isn't a timetable/service guide. There's nothing wrong with including old names in the articles (not the titles). The very fact that station signage reflects the past is a strong case to include this sort of information. Encyclopedias preserve historical information, don't they?
• Not every change the MTA makes to the Map reflects a desired change of name. Take changes on a case-by-case basis.
• Lack of space on the Map should be taken into account when considering station names, on an individual basis. For instance, I find it quite clear that the MTA has no intention to rename Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets and Hoyt Street–Fulton Mall, and use "Hoyt–Schermerhorn" and "Hoyt St" only because of space constraints. The online line maps still say "Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets" and "Hoyt Street–Fulton Mall," and I think the inclusion of "Fulton Mall" (changed from the earlier "Hoyt Street–Bridge Street") is actually the most recent change, meant to bring attention to the relatively recent Fulton Mall commercial area.
• Don't use the bubbles. They focus primarily on listing connecting services and covering broad areas, not the stations. The names that should be used are the names attached to the station dots (or, in the case of discussion, whatever name is decided upon).
• I don't think it's a good idea to just make up station names for the purpose of creating pages for complexes. If you can find some satisfactory external source that uses the name(s), then great! Otherwise, not so great.

—Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly clear with what you're trying to say, Larry. Yes, the title should most likely include the most up-to-date names, which is on the map. But we can list an alternative as well. For example, Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall was formerly known as Brooklyn Bridge. The City Hall prefix was added when the loop station closed. If the loop siation ever reopens, the prefix would be removed. I understand, but for purposes of clarity, we can include the former in articles as an alternative, but current in beginning of first sentence and title. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What do you mean by "Don't use the bubbles"?

Yes, that was what I was suggesting regarding old names. We also have to go case-by-case deciding what is "old" and what is just "convenient" (specifically, the space-constraint names I mentioned). By bubbles, I'm referring to the bubble-like areas that list bus/rail connections, such as the one you got "Jackson Heights–74th Street–Roosevelt Avenue" from. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing a review of all "uncertain" station names. It doesn't have to be all at once, but as I come across article names I find dubious, I'll post them to a page somewhere and hold a discussion. It's not feasible to use one blanket system for naming all ~470 stations. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue ADA icon

Wow, I feel terrible bringing up so many issues at the same time, but I feel obligated to. I don't like the new blue accessibility icon. For one thing, it's somewhat blocky and unattractive. For another, it doesn't match up with what most other rapid transit articles use, which is Template:Access icon. I think consistency is important in this regard. What benefit does the blue icon bring over the other one? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the blue icon over the black on transparent one because for my opinion, it's more attractive and brings out attraction to the table. The plain one would never stand out than the blue one does. I was going to bring up a discussion to use the blue ADA icon to replace the other one when I originally decided to create a new table, but I think that the blue one would work better for the table only. If we do decide to use the blue one instead of the black on transparent one, then we should have a consensus on that. However, the blue one should not be pulled from the table. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Today's my birthday!!!

Happy birthday! Now, I agree with you that the blue icon draws the eye better than the other one. In fact, I think it's too good at drawing the eye. It borders on distracting. This icon works on the MTA line info pages because those pages are colorful already; the blue icon doesn't draw the eye as much, because of all the greens and blues and reds all over the place. On the WP table, it's the only real colorful element, and it draws attention from the table's content. In addition, take a look at the MTA's icon. It's about the same size as the text used in the rest of the page. Now look at the WP table. The icon is significantly larger than the text it sits next to. It screams, "Look here! This station is accessible!" The first thing people see when they look at the table is probably the huge icon (or multiple icons). I don't feel that this is the purpose of the table. The table should indicate accessibility, yes, but not overstate it. The black icon has the advantages of consistency (with other transit-related articles) and subtlety. What functional benefits does the blue icon have? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: New York Time is 5 hours offset from WP time. My birthday is really is in 15 minutes....

Flamurai said the same thing. The pixel strokes were 1 px, or very close. The blue one stands out, but it could undergo some fixing up. Why don't we create an icon with a blue on transparent with a recatngular border to replace the white on blue? Remember, it doesn't hurt to be creative. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to sound like I'm indiscriminately opposing everything here, but… I still don't see the benefit of the blue icon. You say it stands out; frankly, I don't think that it should. These aren't tables on station accessibility, they're tables on station information. The station name is the only thing that should really stick out; everything else is on equal footing. What is the ultimate contribution the blue icon makes to the project? As it is, it is distracting to the reader. In your proposal, it's almost like the black one, except it's blue. Creativity is great, if there's a sufficient yield. What benefit will come from the work? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be worried about opposing ideas. We all have different opinions, and that's fine. That's what consensus' for: to discuss opinions and make an agreement. But I only used the blue icon because the MTA table used it. But if necessary, we'll just use the black-on-transparent one, as the blue ADA icon was just an excuse because the MTA uses it on most of their nomenclature (example: R142 strip maps, service tables, etc.). --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the MTA doesn't own Wikipedia =) We don't have to do everything the way they do. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to "officialize" the project, as to increase popularity of our work. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't need colors for that. =) As long as we keep creating good content, the popularity should take care of itself. Plus, how popular do we have to be? If just one person looks up something about the subway and walks away with new knowledge, I say we've done our job well. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be funny if one got an A++ on a research paper of the New York City Subway system. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 09:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, I propose that we restore {{Access icon}} as the accessibility icon, for the various reasons I've given. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullets linking to subway service articles

Hey, guys, remember a past discussion on images linking to the subway service articles? Well, good news! I found the proper syntax for this. Here's the syntax:

[[File:NYCS-bull-trans-5.svg|20px|link=5 (New York City Subway service)]]

It renders . Now click the link. Thoughts? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, but of what use is it? It looks nice, sort of. It might be of use for the little bullet in the table. Is there anything else? Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My art teacher is supposed to make me a copy of Adobe Illustrator, so when I go back to school and he gives me a copy, I'll make special bullets (An outline around the letter/number for it's right color). Hope that helps. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This has problems with accessibility; see the discussion on Template talk:Click. --NE2 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but that is why I'll create special bullets for this purpose. I'll do that after new year's. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. The template uses a CSS hack that should be avoided in most cases. In a browser that does not support CSS, like one for the blind, the image will continue to link to the image description page. --NE2 16:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Click the subway bullet. Go ahead, click it. After you click it, it links to the subway page. The bullet is still seen on the subway service page, and you can view the information after clicking it there. I will go ahead and implement this with the three shuttle pages. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the bullets. See the service information for S and S. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I said. These templates make the subway articles inaccessible for anyone with a non-CSS browser. --NE2 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, it's not working in Opera 9, what I'm using. -- Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 17:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am not using click, i'm using click-inline. And what's a css-browser? And can there be a way for it to work, besides breaking the accessibility so it can work on all browsers? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Click-inline uses click. Cascading Style Sheets is a way of formatting text that not all browsers support. No, there is no way to make it work. --NE2 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have two objections to this.

• NE2 and Pacific Coast Highway are correct. The template (which is based on {{Click}}), uses CSS hacks to work; this is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia:Accessibility. In fact, take a look at the Wiki source for {{Click}}; there's a warning to avoid the template unless absolutely necessary.
• Technical issues aside: There isn't a need for this. From my point of view, this construction has almost no purpose in this project. It's just superficial dressing. It doesn't make it easier to read articles, and it makes it more difficult to edit and update them.

Expanding this sentiment, I feel like too many recent proposals have been suggested for one of two reasons: (1) technical challenge, and (2) the sake of conforming to MTA design and standards, which is quite honestly completely unnecessary. These include the blue ADA icon and the new table. I have come to see real value in the new table (cleaner, more concise), but I am going to start replacing the blue icon with , since it has been established (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Blue ADA icon) that it is a superior indicator of accessibility. Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've decided not to use click, for the reasons given above. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And as for the table, I promise to have them added to every subway line by the end of the year. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of streetcar lines in Queens

This only peripherally relates to this project, but members might be interested anyway; I've created list of streetcar lines in Queens. I've also been working on Long Island Rail Road and many of its related articles, including the companies that became part of the subway. --NE2 14:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool list. It's fascinating to see how some of the current bus routes follow old streetcar lines. That explains some of the … interesting routes. =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Even in Brooklyn, where the network was much denser, there are a surprising number of lines that have stayed very similar; see Talk:List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn. The first horse car line in the city, the Myrtle Avenue Line, is now the B54 bus, for example. --NE2 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to think about how the history of surface transit has effect even today. It's easy to look at subways and rail and see how modern services reflect old ones, but one would think that something as seemingly ephemeral as streetcar routes would fade away after they closed. But resources like these lists make it clear that modern surface transit is just as connected to its past as rail transit is. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I also wrote list of streetcar lines in Brooklyn. --NE2 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Access icon in service table

"Sorry, but icon under name seems better for porpuses [sic] of notability" … Imdanumber1, what exactly do you mean by this? How does having {{Access icon}} underneath the station name make it more notable? Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Having it after the text just doesn't seem right to me, because having the icon after the text will tend to make it lost in the table. If we used the blue icon, it wouldn't matter where it went because of its color. The text is just nearly the same color as the black on transparent icon. Having it after the text would just cause more confusion. Underneath the text makes moree sense since people won't literally have to "search" for the icon; they just look underneath the station name and there it is. That's why I put the icon under the station name.

As for putting numbers before letters, I have no objection to that. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 07:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about having to search for the icon, but I don't agree with it being "lost" or "confusing". The table really isn't all that complex. The icon is almost the same color as text but has completely different (and obvious) shape (i.e., text versus graphic). I don't like how placing it on the next line expands the table. It looks sort of clumsy and unbalanced. Frankly, I prefer the way the handicapped icon was handled in the last table over both of our preferences—i.e., in its own column. When it had its own column, it was clear which stations had handicapped icons and which didn't; all it took was a glance down the column. This was easiest, since the column borders served as a natural guide. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A checklist if you will. Merry Christmas! ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 15:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope by the end of the year I will have the tables on all of the subway lines, then I will do a final check on them to make sure that they all have the same form and such. As for the Blue icon, I will not use that. The black on transparent icon will be used, and...I'll put the icon after the name...if it helps. Merry Christmas!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no… now I think we should incorporate the style from the last table: placing the icon in its own column, preferably between the service icons and the station name. That way, it's even easier to see which stations have are accessible and which aren't—as PCH just noted, like "a checklist". I'll work on the 7 (New York City Subway service) article for a little to show you what I think the table should be. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, check out 7 (New York City Subway service). My table is not significantly different from the previous one, but here are the main differences:

• The station name now comes first. This is the most important piece of information in each row and should be the first piece of information a reader sees (whether by sight or by accessibility software).
• now has its own column. It makes it easier to distinguish between accessible and non-accessible stations. This sort of information should have its own place anyway, rather than be under the "Stations" column where it doesn't belong.
• The table-wide cells showing which borough the stations are in are no longer header cells. Their content does not explain what is in the following cells and is thus does not belong in cells that are defined as semantic headers.
• The station cells should be headers because they explain what the rest of the content in each row applies to. To keep the content left-aligned, the CSS code style="text-align: left;" must be used; align="left" doesn't work. I don't see this as a problem for Web accessibility, because it is not imperative that the content is left-aligned. If someone using a non-CSS browser sees the stations as center-aligned… well, that's not the worst thing in the world. Pacific Coast Highway, it'd be great if you could tell me about any significant rendering errors in Opera.
• Place each different connection on its own line. After each rail connection, specify the rail station.

Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what it looks like in Camino and Safari. Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In Opera. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 23:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! What is this??? Why have we rearranged the format again? I changed the table format for a reason! To provide a consistent format for all services. And now we go with this???

Look, I know we shouldn't do everything the MTA table does, but their table should set an example of how our table should be, not that as what I see at 7!!! No way! I disapprove of that. I will be putting the table BACK to the way it was, with the icons on the far left, as well as putting the station name after the icons, as well as putting the ADA icon underneath the station name, teh transfers with the letters bebore the numbers, and putting the connections back without the branches and main lines. See here? This is how the table should be arranged, and I don't want to hear, "We shouldn't imitate everything the MTA does", because the fact of the matter is, we darn well should. They are setting an example of how our work should be displayed to readers, not like that table seen before the change. Therefore, I will be putting the seven line table back to the way it was, kapish??? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the point of this? To irk the nerves of other contributors? Somehow, the idea of consensus got past you. It it sure isn't the "I'm gonna do it whether you like it or not, screw you!" you just exibited. And if the situation deteriorates, I'll resort to administrative action. And for the record, Wikipedia and the MTA are two seperate entities. Ebony and Ivory. Think about that from now on. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 03:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you're going too far, PCH. You choose to report me to WP:AIV for no reason??? All I said was that we should follow the MTA's standard. They are setting an example of how our work should be, and yet, we choose to follow our own ideas? I don't think so. If we are going to combine the previous trashy table with the new table, I'm not up for it. And you dare say I'm "irking" the nerves of others? NOT! Y'all are! I guess that's why Marc Shepherd left, cause WP's shit got to him, and made him retire. And don't "experiment" on the service articles, experiment in the sandbox! That's what it's for. I am going on Wikibreak now because I am stressed out enough already!!! Larry had to bring up every single issue that bothered him, while everything else was fine, and now we are proposing some other stupidness that I just see unreasonable! Everyone here fails to see what the intent of my actions are. You want to know what the intent of my actions are? To improve the encyclopedia, that's what! And all of Wikipedia's rules and damn policies and administrators are making me sick and tired and stressed out. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Goodbye until January!

This is the main problem you have. YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ANYONE ELSE BUT YOURSELF. And until you get that resolved, this type of place is not going to work well for you. And I said if it deteriorates, I 'll resort to that. And it's getting pretty close. I have reported you to wikiquette alerts. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer the icons before the name as MTA does. On appearance alone I like the accessibility icon in a separate column as in A, but an argument could be made that if WP is going to repeat MTA tables, the tables should be formatted similarly. Gimmetrow 05:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Kapish"? Is this a feeble attempt at intimidation? Who do you think you are? Do you think you can dictate how things will look and what format is going to be used in the project's articles? You may have come up with the table design and what not, but let me make this perfectly clear: You do not own anything, you do not own the articles, you have no right–absolutely no right—to make tyrannical dictums about how things are going to be done around here. "I disapprove"? "I don't want to hear"? Are you lord and dictator, who can decree what shall and what shall not be? No. You're not. If you want things a certain way, say so, have a discussion, and see what people think. Perhaps I should have made it clear that my edits to the 7 page were just for testing and evaluation. But did I come around and say, "Listen, I think the table should be like this, and forget what you all think"? No. That's what you just did. Sure, I disagreed with a lot of recent changes. Did I go around reverting all of them heedlessly? No, I brought every single one of them up for discussion. Try reading this.

Now, you think that the MTA is setting an example? Good for you, you're welcome to that opinion. Unfortunately, it's not objective truth. Not every one thinks the same way you do. And frankly, "because the MTA does it this way" is not a legitimate reason to do anything. Let me be even more frank: All of the ideas you have contributed to this project have had one underlying motivation: because the MTA does it this way. The blue icon? "The MTA uses blue icons." The table format? "The MTA uses that table format." A few have happened to also have legitimate use (e.g., using sourced station names). The one thing you have not done is satisfactorily explain why the MTA does it better than we do.

Okay, now let's assume that yes, perhaps the MTA should provide an example. That's it. It should provide an example. There's absolutely no reason for us to slavishly follow every design detail provided by the MTA. Why should we keep the exact same order of columns? Why should we provide only the information given in the MTA tables? Why should we follow the precise order in which the MTA places services? (By the way, the MTA puts the numbers before the letters just as often, if not more often, than the reverse order. See here, here, here, and here.) Why? Especially if we can come up with something better? You've previously told me to not be afraid of new ideas. You seem to be terrified of new ideas, seeing as how you want to copy the MTA styles to the letter. Why shouldn't we? Here's why I don't think so:

• The station name should come first. Why? Because it's the most important piece of information in the table, and should be the first thing people read. Try using a screen reader on your table. The first things it will read are the service information icons. How would someone using a screen reader know that the service info provided by the icons applies to the station following the icons? It might be obvious to us, but let's not be self-centered here. Most people listening with a screen reader would assume that the station is the first piece of information, and the service info for the next row would apply to the station before! (Consider this.)
• The ADA icon has nothing to do with the station name. Whether or not a station is ADA-accessible is a separate issue from what the station is named. Therefore, it should have it's own column. In addition, it is far easier to find the accessible stations by glancing down the column, rather than looking through every station name to see whether it is followed by an icon.
• Numbers almost always naturally sort before letters. Plus, the MTA uses numbers before letters more often than vice versa, from what I've seen. I've listed four instances where this is the case; the only case where I can see the opposite is on The Map.
• Why shouldn't we indicate the branch of commuter rail in the connections? There are many branches of both the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, and it would be helpful to specify which branch the subway station abuts. Why not include it? Because the MTA doesn't?

The fact of the matter is, there are no good reasons to blindly try and imitate the MTA's style. Sure, use it as a starting point. But do not sit there and let things fester because of "loyalty" to the MTA design.

And finally: Do not try and assert yourself here as if you own the place. This project belongs to all of Wikipedia. If you disagree with stuff that's going on, say so and explain why. If you can make arguments with merit, then others will consider them. On the other hand, if you continue to say "because the MTA does it", then fewer people will consider. And if you start dictating stuff and making renegade edits, then no one will consider. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a few of your recent edit summaries. Do you think you're going to get anywhere by calling us idiots? What exactly is going through your head? Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'd really suggest that everybody just cool off for a bit. The personal attacks really aren't doing anything other than driving up the tension level. Everyone here is doing a really great job contributing to the NYCS Wikiproject. I've been quite impressed by the hard work of all of you. Let's try to resolve our disputes amicably and not resort to ad hominem attacks. As I said, I think you're all doing a really nice job. alphachimp. 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And Marc did not leave because of bureaucracy. Marc left because he felt that he was putting in too much effort fixing mediocre edits, rather than towards excellent articles. He never had a problem with bureaucracy, because he remained civil, cool-headed, and respectful at all times. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alphachimp, but the only one making personal attacks here is Imdanumber1. Calling us idiots in his edit summaries doesn't help anyone. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a reply below. You're right, Alphachimp, we, especially me, should all cool off and I hope we can still work together, and keep the project strong. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 06:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The icon needs to come on the left. It's visually darker than the text, therefore your eye is immediately drawn to it, so putting it in the middle actually deemphasizes the station name. When I flip to your test table, Larry, my eye goes right to the column of icons. Then it goes right-to-left, meaning the last thing I read is the station name. – flamurai (t) 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See my response below, in the next section. I know it looks better with the icons on the left. I'd rather leave them on the left. But consider Wikipedia:Accessibility and read on below. Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Larry, I'm aware of WP:WAI, but as per Flamurai and Gimmetrow, the SSIs should be on the left because your formatting for the table would cause confusion, for the reason Flamurai gave above. The images would be the first thing the readers would see, most importantly the SSIs, but adding the station name first would probably make things worse. We want readers to view the format left to right, as normal text should, not looking all over the place. Your test table for 7 would be good with rearrangement of the SSIs and the name. That is the only thing that needs to be switched. Using WP:WAI for the table would produce more problems. What's wrong with the images coming first? Some of the other tables that haven't been changed yet still have the access icon first. WP:WAI would conflict with that, but it was never brought up at all. The icons should still come first, per Flamurai, Gimmetrow, and my reasons above. It's unanimous.

The ADA Icon row can come after the name, which I agree with. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are seriously wasting your keystrokes in trying to explain to me why it's visually better with icons in front. I am perfectly aware of why the table should have the icons first. Not only that, I agree with you 110% that it would be visually better with the icons first. I love it with the icons first! Seriously, I do! But that doesn't mean we should throw WP:WAI out the window. Just because no one remembered to reference it before doesn't mean that we should ignore it now. It would be fairly insensitive of us to screw over people who use screen readers and such just to make it minimally easier for us folks who can see. Yes, names first would cause confusion for people looking at the tables, but it would cause far more confusion for those "listening" to it. I think someone using a screen reader would find it much more difficult to decipher the table than would someone who can see it. That person might look at the wrong part of the table initially but can easily recover. Not so easy for the blind person.

I'm currently looking at some accessibility-related documents from the World Wide Web Consortium. I'm hoping that I can find some sort of table elements or something that will solve the accessibility problem while allowing us to keep the icons in front. I'd appreciate it if you guys could maybe do a little research as well.

Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some scope elements, but my reader doesn't like them. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like OS X's reader is very advanced. I'll try JAWS for Windows to see how it works out there. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to sacrifice the primary medium (visual) for a secondary (screen reader). If the two were equal solutions, I'd be on board. But why make it worse for sighted readers? I understand the need for accessibility, and your argument, but either way this goes, something has to give. My opinion is that it's best to make it slightly more awkward (note this doesn't completely break it!) for screen readers if it improves the presentation for the primary audience, rather than make it more confusing for sighted readers to make it read well in screen reader software. Anyway, I don't know how screen readers deal with row headers that don't come first, but that may be a way to make this work. (edit: I notice you already had this idea.) – flamurai (t) 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is sort of getting annoying. Parallels Desktop beta is not cooperating with me, so the JAWS testing will have to wait. So I'll add some finishing touches to User:Larry V/Subway test table, with the icons first, and submit it as a final proposal. The best thing to do right now would probably be to add some sort of explanation about the positioning of the "Station" column—a sort of heads-up to people using screen readers. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've realized that I might have gone overboard with the CSS in {{Infobox NYCS}}. I'll be trying to fix that, let me know if anything breaks. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold up, Larry, isn't there some type of wiki code we can use so that we can still see the icon first, but visual-impaired people can hear the icon info after the name. I don't know if the no wiki syntax or include only things would work, but whatever. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything, I certainly have never heard of or seen it anywhere. I don't think <nowiki> would work, because it would definitely interfere with the table. <includeonly> is only for templates, so that's out. There may be something out there, but I don't have great screen reader software to try it out with, so it'll be a problem. Until I figure that out, I'll just stick with the scope elements and hope that works for most people. On a related note, a certain Takuma Ishizeki has been making edits to various service articles (e.g., A (New York City Subway service), B (New York City Subway service). Some of these edits are somewhat dubious in the light of our standards (for example, using non-referenced station names, strange line names ["IND Concourse-6th Avenue Line"?]). I was about to fix these mistakes, but I realized that they were mostly to old-style tables which should be getting an overhaul soon. If anyone finds him messing with any new tables, feel free to revert [with proper edit summaries, of course]. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The screen reader program is important for visually impaired, we do want all people welcome to our work. Example: say, if one listened to "the 7 train, at all times, stops at the Flushing-Main Street station, with transfers to the Q48 to LGA airport, connections available to the LIRR." Would that work? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I know, that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement without changing the visual aspect of the table—for instance, having the table actually display "stops at the Flushing–Main Street station" and so forth, or for us to have the station name physically in front of the icons. Most of what screen readers do is read what is already visually displayed. Underlying tags such as summary help augment this, but not to the degree that you're suggesting. Unfortunately, HTML isn't a programming language, where we could have an if… else construct for these types of things. On second thought, maybe it's better that way; I can only imagine what ignorant Web designers would do with programming capabilities. Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Brief apology

Okay, I think I got a little too far. I am just going to fess up, and come out clean and put an end to this feud. I want to apologize to the WikiProject for my behavior. I see that because of my new proposal for the table I don't want any changes done to it. And I still don't want any changes done to it, but if I get outvoted, I'll have to deal with it, because that's how consensus works. We have a discussion to explain our ideas and opinions. Failure for me to express my ideas and opinions in a civil manner resulted in where we are now; fighting and everyone getting hyped up. So, first, I want to apologize to PCH for making personal attacks, and I want to apologize to Larry for failing to assume good faith in his part. I want to continue to play a part in this WikiProject, and I hope everyone can seek to forgive my behavior.

Now, I'd like to explain my opinion for the format that Larry has made:

• First, putting the SSI icons after the name is probably not the best way to go; it should go before the name, as per Gimmetrow. Look at the other tables that haven't been changed yet. The ADA icon is before the name. What's wrong with putting the SSIs in front of the station name? The station name should dominate the row, but as seen on the MTA's and the other service tables, changed and unchanged, the icon row is so narrow that it doesn't matter.

• I guess I don't have any objections to making the ADA icon have its own row. But trying to follow the MTA's format made me fail to assume good faith in Larry's partaking, so sorry about that, Larry.

• As for showing the LIRR's and MNRR's branches/main lines, I don't have any objections to that, either. Once again, however, trying to follow the MTA's format made me fail to assume good faith for Larry, so excuse me for that again, Larry.

• Letters before numbers, I don't see any major issue on that, so whatever y'all decide on with this issue is fine with me.

So, as per the above, the table headers should be the SSIs, followed by the station names, the ADA icon column, then subway transfers and connections.

That said, those are my opinions, and I'm sorry if I made others uncomfortable/offended, and I hope we can still work together, and I hope I can still play a valuable part of the team. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's all right, we all lose our cool once in a while. It's understandable to be resistant when people make suggestions to your ideas, but after a while you'll see that a lot of their suggestions were really good. No hard feelings. About the table: Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the service icons first too. But keep Wikipedia:Accessibility in mind. Using Mac OS X Speech on the table, this is what I hear: "Stops all times, stops rush hours in peak direction only, Flushing Main Street, Handicap/disabled access, Q48 to LaGuardia Airport, LIRR, stops all times, stops rush hours in peak direction only, Willets Point Shea Stadium, stops all times, 111th Street, Q48 to LaGuardia Airport". If I were listening to that without seeing the table, I'd think that each "row" started with the station name, and Shea Stadium would end up serving only local trains at all times. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the proposed table is now at User:Larry V/Subway test table. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Larry, it's not, "all right", because yes, I'm definitely hard-headed sometimes, and I don't always listen. Me failing to assume good faith on your part resulted in this mess. It's better safe than sorry, and I apologize for my disorderly behavior. From now on, I will try to aggume good faith on other's partaking and make a suggestion instead of slurs. I don't really have a problem with the table, and I'll discuss my opinions for it. For now, however, I need some sleep. Talk to ya later. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ex-BMT streetcar origins?

Does anyone here have a list of which of the ex-BMT streetcar lines were operated by each company:

• Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad
• Nassau Electric Railroad
• Brooklyn Heights Railroad
• Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad
• South Brooklyn Railway

Thank you for any help. --NE2 19:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion?

Would it make sense to expand this project to include all MTA properties, or at least all but the LIRR and Metro-North? The buses (formerly streetcars) and subway share some common history, and even the LIRR relates to both. --NE2 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Our objective already says that "This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate, organize and develop all Wikipedia activities concerning the New York City Subway. Specifically, it deals with everything on rails under the banner of MTA New York City Transit, including the Staten Island Railway and all subway stations, from the beginning of service to the present day. It also may include connecting services such as Metro-North Railroad and various ferries." We might as well fix all of the MTA stuff. Just what do we name this thing? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess WP:MTA (Wikiproject:Metropolitan Transit Authority) would be a pretty good option. All of those properties (NYC bus, NYC Subway, LIRR, Metro North, etc.) fall under the general MTA banner. alphachimp. 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, as per the above. Go for it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Achimp, it would be phrased as:Wikipedia:WikiProject Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York). There are dozens of MTAs, so clarify with (New York) at least.

So, Pacific Coast Highway, as per an expansion to the project's scope, should the project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did say "why not". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, we'll reach a decision upon Larry's partaking. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like quite an ambitious undertaking, but I don't see why it can't work. Let's clarify here: This'll cover everything under MTA, including LIRR and Metro-North? Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about WikiProject New York City transit? There were a few streetcar lines that stopped running without an MTA takeover, which would be excluded from WP:MTA. And ferries are a good idea, since those were usually closely linked to the rail lines. --NE2 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

NYC transit pretty means the same thing as NYC subway, so that would probably not be the best name to rename our project. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Transit commonly refers to:

• Public transport, transportation systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles

--NE2 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What about something like "WikiProject New York City Public Transportation"? Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What about something like "WikiProject New York City Public Transport"? (Would save typing over "Transportation".) Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we call it, let's make sure we don't jump too eagerly to overhaul articles that other people have worked hard on. Use of talk pages will be essential to make this transition seamless and painless. In addition, I'll be working on a sort of "site map" over the next day or two. This project is becoming complex enough that one WikiProject page and one talk page won't be enough, and it won't be helpful if random people start making new pages, either, in a frenzy of "let's help!". Site map first, organizational changes later. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest not naming it New York City Transit. It's a pretty typical expression around New York City for the whole MTA, but it's also synonymous (at least among NYCT employees) with just NYC Buses and Subways. (Most call it "Transit".) I'm a little fearful that the name Imdanumber1 is suggesting is too long. I'm not sure about yours, Larry...it might be a compromise solution. Are we willing to expand to cover the PATH Train too? alphachimp. 08:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "WikiProject Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)" is a little too long, and that "WikiProject New York City Transit" suggests that we only work on items related to the New York City Transit Authority, which I believe encompasses the subway and bus networks, but nothing more. I think that "WikiProject New York City Public Transport" is broad enough that it doesn't restrict us to simply NYCT-related or MTA-related topics, but narrow enough that it clearly defines our scope (New York City and surrounding areas). Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note the capitalization. "New York City transit" is transit in NYC; "New York City Transit" is the NYCTA. --NE2 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Larry's idea. It doesn't cause confusion with NYCT and does not lay out boundaries. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've been covering a lot of MTA-related work in the past, right? I don't see why we can't rename the project Wikipedia:WikiProject MTA (New York). Let's see, we've experience with the MTA, right? We have a lot of sources to provide us with the information. nycsubway.org and station reporter are excellent resources. LIRRhistory as well, for Long Island Rail Road. We've done a great job with the NYC subway; it's time we expand to the rest of the MTA. -_Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Using "MTA" in the name hints that we are limited to the MTA. But we very likely will dabble in non-MTA-related subjects that are still related to NYC public transport (e.g., NJ Transit), as well as topics predating the MTA. Physical New York City subway lines aren't attached to the MTA, for instance. "New York City Public Transport" doesn't link itself to any government agency and thus gives us a broader scope. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if possible, we can still work in other areas of the MTA, and as well as PATH and NJ Transit. We are focused in the tri-state area- right? The MTA is based in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. We should limit ourselves to these areas as we should have some experience with them. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we're not covering the MTA per se. The MTA is a government agency. We could care less if tomorrow it became the ABC or the XYZ. What we are covering is the public transportation network of the New York City area, which may or may not be MTA. We are covering its history, which predates the existence of any sort of overseeing body. Thus, "New York City Public Transport". Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the sound of "Transport"...I think "Transportation" sounds better. alphachimp. 09:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree as per Alphachimp. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Achimp, I responded on your talk page regarding the bot.

Honestly, I did like "transportation" better, but I figured that perhaps "transport" would be "more correct", since the article on the subject is "public transport". Note how I've referred to "public transportation" everywhere except in my proposed name. :-) So is it same to assume that we should go with "WikiProject New York City Public Transportation"? Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, if you're going to do that, follow our naming conventions and go with WikiProject New York City public transportation. --NE2 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That deals with articles. This is within Wikipedia namespace, outside of article space. And it is a name of our project. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would completely support either of the last 2 names. Do we want to bot-tag the talk pages of our articles? alphachimp. 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a WikiProject that didn't use title capitalization in its name, and those conventions are for articles only. "WikiProject New York City Public Transportation" it is, then. What will your bot-tagging entail, alpha? Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We'd tag the talk pages of articles from WP:NYCPT with wikiproject templates. I think the idea was floated before, but I never actually went through with it. alphachimp. 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It turns out Template:TrainsWikiProject does basically the same thing. I've fixed it to reflect our new name. alphachimp. 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this is essentially a subproject of trains, how about using their template with a "This article is maintained by WikiProject NYC Public Transportation", like on Talk:Pennsylvania Station? The few articles about buses could get a separate template. --NE2 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... I didn't realize that we already did that. --NE2 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There will still have to be a separate one for anything that isn't train-related, since only the rail-related articles have Template:TrainsWikiProject. Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be including the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority... sure, it's part of the MTA, but it would be better suited to a NYC-area roads project. There's certainly enough for one, especially with Robert Moses, and it's only very loosely connected to the public transportation. --NE2 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. That seems to be a product of the misplaced focus on the MTA, rather than on public transportation. It really shouldn't be included. Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Early Brooklyn streetcars

If anyone else is interested in the history of the Brooklyn streetcars, I've posted a list from an 1874 Brooklyn street directory at the bottom of Talk:List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn. --NE2 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great list. Needs a little cleanup, but very thorough. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did that as an exact transcription; a list from a specific time wouldn't be in an article. It's more of a reference for articles about the lines. --NE2 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:NYSubway4

I just recently discovered this template. I see it is for the article on the 4 line, however, it is currently being unused. I hope that with some revamping, it's possible that this template, as well as others, can be reinstated. I also found some for the 2, 3 and 1. Any opinions on what to do with them? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These templates were recently created, but they were never put into the articles. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 08:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we could use these templates and put each line into the station's page they refer to. Rbb l181 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They seem a little too list-y for me. I dislike those boxes at the ends of articles in general; they seem somewhat obtrusive and often unnecessary, and multiple ones are even worse. I find them useful only when they connect articles that are related but aren't shown together anywhere else. For instance, the links in {{NYCS navbox}} are certainly related, but nowhere else are they all together. On the other hand, each service article (xx (New York City Subway service)) already has a list of its stations. I think the templates would be pretty redundant. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they're actually for the station articles, not the subway service articles. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, and I still don't like the idea. Each station article should already have a {{NYCS navbox}} at its end. Adding another "box" of that sort would be too obtrusive and unwieldy. A list of other stations on the service could always be accessed by clicking the link to that service, and a list of other stations on the physical line could be accessed through a link to the line. If you want to add a navbox for the service, then there really should be one for the physical line as well, and then the whole thing starts getting out of control. In addition, I've never seen station articles for any other transit system use boxes for lists of stations. One could suggest that breaking the mold is a good thing, but in this case I think there is good reason to avoid this template. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should every article have a Template:NYCS navbox at the end? I've only been putting boxes like that on articles that are actually linked from the box; from station articles, you can go to any of several larger articles to reach the ones in that box. Do other people find it useful? --NE2 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with not using it; we already have navigation through previous and next station links and through the link to the service. Similar boxes have been deleted for the state highways of most states for the same reasons. --NE2 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the tables, which will get overhauled by next year (which is in two days)! As well as the infoboxes.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New table has been inserted into 7 (New York City Subway service), including special tags and other accessories. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll add them when I have the time. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather write articles. --NE2 19:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving on....

Hey guys, great with the move. We're definitely ready to move on to to brand new areas, so let's get started! NE2, I see that you've been involved with the project since the last couple of weeks, would you like to add your name to the list and get involved? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I was thinking if the NYCS articles have an infobox, shouldn't the other LIRR and MNRR articles have some too? I don't see any there. They should have infoboxes, as well as an appropriate naming convention. Here's what I'm thinking:

For railroad stations, use <Station Name> (<Branch/Main Line Name>). Names for the LIRR can be retrieved from here; names for the MNR can be retrieved from here. Numbered streets should be written with their ordinal adjective (e.g., "59th Street"); numbers ten or below should be written out (e.g., "Third Avenue"). Where needed, redirects should be placed. In most multi-line stations, each line will have its own article for that station. In some cases, where there is much to say about the complex as a whole, only one article will be written for the complex and all its individual stations; naming for those articles is usually <Station Name> (Long Island Rail Road) (e.g., Jamaica (Long Island Rail Road). Articles about rail yards are simply of the form <Yard Name>. Any thoughts on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Branch names should probably not be used in the title. The reason I say this is because there are no (or a very small number of) stations that have the same name. The system used for subway stations are done, because of that reason. I would also rather you use <Station Name> (LIRR station) or <Station Name> (LIRR), the latter whic his currently in use with no major issues. Writing "Long Island Rail Road" out is kind of long winded. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Shakira • My hips!}} 05:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity between stations like there is in the subway, so this is pointless. --NE2 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Even in most other subway systems, they don't use line names because there are very few stations with the same name. We only do so because of New York's unique combination of geography and street layout. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

More streetcars

I've written articles for six of the former north-south streetcar lines in Manhattan: Category:Streetcars in Manhattan. I'm considering writing one on the Fifth Avenue Line too, the Fifth Avenue Coach Company's first bus line, started in 1886; it might be best to redirect to the company (which operated other lines later) for now though. What do you think - are long-lasting bus routes notable enough for their own article? --NE2 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10