As I pointed out in the previously archived message, I'm trying to make Templates for the Long Beach Branch and Port Jefferson Branch, and I'm considering one on the Hempstead Branch. I admit I'm having trouble with it so here's one of them([[User:DanTD/Sandbox/Template:Long Beach
Branch]]), let me know what needs to be fixed. ----DanTD (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to line templates? If so, I will probably do it during the week, similar to templates created for Metro-North and New Jersey Transit rail lines.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dan, I believed you missed several stations for the Long Beach Branch, But other than that, everything else seems fine, although you may want a second opinion. But in the meantime, I'll work on a line template for the Port Jefferson Branch. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice job with the 63rd St line. I updated a few too. I'm missing a symbol for the Sea Beach line and one for the Queens Blvd line. (Those two symbols are still red on the corresponding templates.)
Perhaps you should convert the IRT Flushing Line from red to blue and add the LIRR lines and former lines that it crosses over. ----DanTD (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to do the Flushing line, however it was kind-of messing with my head, yesterday. ;-) I'm not that familiar with the LIRR, but do you mean where the Port Washington & Main lines cross the Flushing line?
That and the Montauk Line at Hunterspoint Avenue & LIC, and the former Whitestone Branch. I've got to get my MTA Map. ----DanTD (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and add those crossings if you like and I will convert the line to Rapid Transit later (Making sure to watch out for those new crossings). Acps110 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
IRT Flushing Line fix didn't work
Blah! I just tried to fix the line template for the IRT Flushing Line, and I nearly ruined it. But know this; The IND Crosstown Line crosses IRT Flushing between Vernon Boulevard-Jackson Avenue station, and Hunters Point Avenue station. It's Hunters Point Avenue that connects directly to the Hunterspoint Avenue (LIRR station). The places where the 7 Train cross over the LIRR are west of 33rd Street-Rawson Street station(also crossing over Amtrak's various Northeastern lines), at Woodside-61st Street station where it connects to Woodside (LIRR station), and between Willets Point-Shea Stadium and the Flusinng-Main Street Station where it crosses over the former Whitestone Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that info... I'll add the crossings tomorrow. Did you save your work where you messed it up? How about posting a link to that if you have it and maybe I can help you figure out what you did. Acps110 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I myself will get to it as well. Also, if you come across any stations that are accessible, for both the subway and railroad lines, add those too. Something just crossed my mind. If we are updating the pictograms to the subway lines, and some have major elevated stations, accessible or both, some of the pictures are missing. (take a look!!!) If we will ever finish the other subway lines, we may have to create some of the pictures ourselves using Inkscape. I'll see what I can do, but I'll think start a discussion at the page I just posted first and address the problem there. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
New York City Subway line map problems
Here's what I've noticed. First, I've pointed out that according to the pictogram legend at User:AlisonW/Rail Icons (the complete list) the lines had to be converted to blue to represent a subway line, not red, which represented railroads. But there are more problems. Some of the stations do not have a terminal station with the accessibility icon for minor stations, since not all stations serve express routes only. I believe there should be s standard set for the way our pictograms are made, and they should match with the legend; it's only fair.
I just came back on Wikipedia and noticed two additional stations (10th Avenue and 34th Street) were added to the map on the 7 page. While apparently it represents the future 7 line extension, it does not make sense to add it until the station opens. I didn't remove it, but what do you guys think? should it stay or go? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I noticed it there too, but I don't see any harm leaving it there. We already made a line map for the Second Avenue Subway, which doesn't exist yet, as well as connections to the line seen on the 63rd Street Line map. If the plan is nixed, then we remove it. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Line Templates
Perhaps we should use the mileage column to insert an instead of changing the station icon right now. There really aren't enough icons in the Rapid Transit series, as opposed to the Railroad series. Some of the line templates were converted recently, with certain compromises due to the lack of icons.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think its best to use the icons that the list of them gives us, but we may have to make some of them ourselves. I am unable to do this at the moment (I'm using an iPod touch to talk as I write this), nor will I be able to make significant contributions during the weekend because of the lack of computer resources I have (my brother is constantly hogging the computer) but I can provide opinions as much as possible from this point on until the summer. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've implemented Acps110's suggestion on a number of templates. The bule icon set is just too limited at the moment. If it had been up to me, I would have continued using the red icons (technically not intended for Rapid Transit, I know), because they're the richest set, and likely will continue to be for a long time coming. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Completley off the subject of line templates, I just found a new LIRR station article, that's not formatted correctly. It's not even named correctly. Instead of saying Fresh Pond, (LIRR station), it's named Fresh Pond, Queens and categorized as both an LIRR and NYC Subway station, I suspect this is the same place as the Fresh Pond Road (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line). If so, shouldn't this be redirected to the existing subway station article? ----DanTD (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Fresh Pond is a residential neighborhood served by Fresh Pond Road and the eponymous subway station, and by the Montauk Line freight station which I imagine is closed now but I don't think it was converted to a subway station. So, I figure the article should discuss the neighborhood, or anyways locate it, and point at the stations, rail lines and any other articles that may be relevant. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there was a station called Fresh Pond for the LIRR, and it should not be confused with the Myrtle Avenue Line station. I agree that WP:NYC should be notified about this because Fresh Pond seems like a neighborhood, but I could be wrong. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
All true. I bicycle through Fresh Pond a few times every year on my way to Brooklyn or Flushing or the Rockaways or whatever, hence am familiar with it and the Fresh Pond Yard. Unfortunately I haven't happened to pass through there since becoming a photographer in October, so got no picture. This weekend I'll be pedalling Bike New York which will probably produce a few nice shots from bridges, and won't get far from East River, but maybe we'll get pictures in another part of May or June. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, now it's bigger and on the whole better, but the bus depot still isn't properly linked and I'm getting the impression there are two rail yards, one for Montauk Branch and one for Myrtle Line. Neighborhood relations probably have an error or two; I only go through on main streets and sometimes along the west side of the cemeteries. I have to stop and talk to the inhabitants one day; maybe this month I'll go there instead of to Monmouth County or the Hamptons, both of which I haven't seen this year yet. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My basis for wanting to do this is this press release by the MTA here: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=080507-HQ15. In it, it says that there is now one head for all three bus operations (Thomas J. Savage, who ran MTA Bus, retired, and Neil S. Yellin, who had run Long Island Bus, moved to LIRR), with the existing head of the NYCTA Department of Buses, Joseph Smith, taking over all three. Furthermore, while the brands are to be retained (and would be included in the new article), each operation is no longer distinct from the other (one planning office, one management), unlike Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, which are distinct operations.
Comment -- However, they are simply three brands under one management. They WERE distinct companies (or operators) before. Now, it is one operator operating three different brands, a la Coach USA. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree - The moves seen this week are really a way to effectively merge the bus divisions without going through all the hassle of changing the acts of incorporation, much the same as the NYCTA is part of the MTA only because the same people are appointed to both boards. A single article on MTA Buses, which mentions which depots/routes are under which legal entity, would be cleaner and easier to find and read. (P.S. I don't think the distinct brands are going to last, either. Most can't even tell the difference between a NYCT Bus and an MTA bus, anywho.)oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, possibly leaning to support. I want to know if the existing articles will remain in place. Those articles should be kept for broader detail, while possibly, the merger article contains consolidated info. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Would be open to that, having a big article on the buses and then individual articles on the different brands. A model of this would be in the New Jersey Transit article, which has separate articles for bus, rail, and light rail. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment #2 That, as far as I can tell, is the point of the Buses in New York City article, which is a bit of a mess and, frankly, redundant. There's a lot in the articles that is "crufty" minutia as it stands.
I think that this pseudo-merger gives us an opportunity revamp the NYC bus articles into a sleek, easy to read and easy to navigate pair of articles, one covering the bus routes and which depots they run out of, and one covering the fleet of bus models used. In other words, the original proposal.
More articles are not needed. After all, buses by their nature are not fixed guideway vehicles, so articles covering the fixed guideways are not needed. If the articles get too long, then maybe we can split them, but I'd also be careful about trying to cram too much easily, rapidly changed detail into the articles. oknazevad (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment 3: Two points, however: Buses in New York City covers all transportation in the city, not just MTA-specific branding...and second, it does not cover Long Island Bus, under the same management.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Barely, though. A really brief mention of NJ transit and Greyhound barely covers the non-MTA buses in the city, and makes no mention of the infamous Chinatown Bus companies. Honestly Buses in New York City should probably go, it supplies no information that's not in other articles, and probably in general, the topic of buses serving riders within NYC and the Metro area would be best servedd by fewer, more tightly written articles.oknazevad (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
R160A-2s on the N line
Is it true that the N line can't get R160A-2 trains because its fleet already has R160Bs. I am just asking this question because i hear that the N line will have only R160Bs not the R160A-2s. Do you think there is a small chance that the MTA may assign the R160A-2 trains on the N. James192(talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but why are so interested? So what if the N does not get R160A-2s? It already has a large amount of R160Bs, which are also now on the W and soon to be on Q. The R160A-2s might be going to the IND lines, like possible the A and C since the R38s are set to retire soon.
TLR's right, the R38s are going, which is why R42s are on the A; R42s come from the J, L, M and Z; their fleet has been replaced by R160s (Alstom version). I don't think either R160 class is going to the A or C, until the R38s are completely gone (should be by the end of this year, or beginning of next year). —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
To bring it to the Port Jeff line page... Create a page at Template:Port Jefferson Line, then copy and paste to that page. Then use {{Port Jefferson Line}} to insert it where you want it on the Port Jeff line page. Acps110 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I did it. My only two problems are that the template isn't as wide as the rest of the infobox, and I can't add the commons tag above it. --DanTD (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this: there are some stations treated like terminals but aren't. An example would be Canal Street on the BMT Broadway Line; the R train sometimes uses this station as an endpoint of its runs (on the schedule, certain trips begin/end there). Would we add that? I have no resentment of creating a category for this, but that's my say. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this calls for a category. Normally, you create categories because you have a thing, X, and you figure the reader is going to be interested in "other things like X". There probably aren't a lot of readers who are saying, "Gee, I'd like to know all of the terminals." There's an existing page, List of New York City Subway terminals that provides additional information that a bare category listing cannot. I don't think that page sees a lot of traffic, though.
I agree with NE2 that there's a definitional question. Is a terminal:
Any station shown as a terminal on the subway map?
In addition to those, any station used for the occasional put-in or short-turn?
In addition to those, any other station that has served as a terminal in the past, even if it's not a terminal now?
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on the tigher standards for B-Class, most of the project's existing B-Class articles should, in fact, be C-Class. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The G has not served Forest Hills on weekends for a few years now due to "construction". While one published source timetable (dated Winter 2007-2008) states that service does run to Forest Hills on weekends, there is another published source, an advisory that has been in effect for about a year. The questions that I wish to bring up are:
1. Would this be a situation where one source can cancel out the other or are both to be covered equally?
2. If one is to be cancelled, which one would set the tone for the article?
I think it's reasonably easy to resolve, and I've made an update to the the article that I hope is satisfactory. Our practice has been not to use Wikipedia as a service advisory database, but where the MTA announces that a change is "until further notice," and there's a published source to that effect, then I don't see a problem with updating the articles accordingly. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As you know, I still want to add the line between West Hempstead (LIRR station) and Mineola (LIRR station), but I've hidden the description of that line until I know the proper name for it. Here's a map to show you that what I'm talking about is real, and from there, I looked for those two former stations and just found another possible name for this line at this link; the "New York Bay Extension." ----DanTD (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any reason to reject that source categorically, and NE2 doesn't seem to be around to argue the contrary viewpoint. I would suggest making the changes you consider appropriate, and be sure to document your reasons. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008 Service Enhancements
It appears the signs are already being changed for the 3 train [1]. Any word on when the timetable will update exactly? I noticed most of the 3-train-related articles don't mention it at all. There are several articles that will need to be updated.
Here's the list I've come up with of articles that will need to be updated once the new 3-train schedule is in effect:
I've already started this by splitting up the service templates so that Times Square–42nd Street can be a terminal. When the service update becomes official, many of the updates happen automatically just by changing the templates. You only need to change it by hand where the service pattern is described in prose. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please update the New York City Subway rolling stock page with yard assignments for the old IRT cars that are in work service?
I am mainly interested in the R33, R33 WF, R36 and R36 WF yard assignments; however if you have assignments for other series cars, please replace the "none" in that column.
For the past few days, I've been noticing that there has been various NYC transit buses from Queens depots serving Hempstead? Anyone knows what this is about? BTW, I've been seeing this during the rush hours; I saw the bus sign say, "TO HEMPSTEAD" in the morning. Anyone know if this is something new the MTA is starting? I can't really find anything about it. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Q5 and the Q85 has daytime service that operates to/from Green Acres Mall. I also think that some other buses, like the Q36 and Q46 just touch the border. But these buses that I've been seeing as of lately go deep into Nassau. I've checked the MTA map but couldn't find anything on this.... —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Alot of these appear to be gif bitmaps, when vector based images would serve a better purpose. As I have had an attempt at doing some myself that hasn't been entirely fruitful, I have since found out that Inkscape has a handy trace tool and I would assume that this would make the task alot more straight forward to do. I'm just looking to see if others feel this is required & if these new versions would be an acceptable replacement to the exisiting ones. Following is an example of what I am proposing.
R12 end rollsign 1 Broadway New SVG Version using the trace toolR12 end rollsign 1 Broadway Existing GIF Version
I really think that the subject of City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) is pretty fascinating. It was the first station on the first subway in New York, it has amazing architecture, and now its just an abandoned loop beneath the streets. Anyway, I would be interested in working on this article to get it to GA-status if someone is willing to help me out. I would love to see this on the main page someday. Let me know if you're interested at all. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of references would be needed to make the article GA-status. It has the potential of making it, though. I'll love to help, but since I'm only available part-time, you may want to turn to someone else who is more available than I am. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I finally added the line template for the LIRR Long Beach Branch, but it sucks. If I put it outside the infobox, it blocks some of the text, and if I put it in the infobox, it breaks up the lines. Plus, there's at least one other missing channel(Mud Creek), and I left it out, because I don't know if Jekyl Island Station was north or south of that channel. ----DanTD (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It took me some time to figure out how to do it, but it worked. I forgot to add the question mark. Thanks a lot. ----DanTD (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for New York City public transportation
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Station Listing
Hi folks,
I just noticed that Jay Street-Borough Hall in the station listing page (Culver line section), lists both the F and G stopping there all the time. The G is incorrect, but I don't know how to fix it. Help?
As I stated on the talk page for the Images Task Force, after being inspired by the category for images of Metra stations, and my own effort to do the same for Long Island Rail Road stations, I created three new categories tonight;
For that matter, of any subject. Most of the Wikipedia pictures I've seen have either no category at all, or only have a cat I added. The ones that I see in Commons, mostly have a cat even if I haven't added one. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen some in the commons that had no cats, and I've either added them or created new ones. But for the ones that don't, I'm hoping they can get added to these new ones. ----DanTD (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a person or people from two anonymous IP's; 71.167.118.234 and 72.37.171.100, who have posted that some LIRR stations, mainly along the Babylon Branch, serve as the terminus of some rush hour trains? How is this possible if they're on the same line? I looked on the LIRR' schedule and saw nothing about this. Also, at least one of those IP's is a source of frequent vandalism. ----DanTD (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
South Ferry & South Ferry Loop
I propose the current South Ferry (New York City Subway) page be moved to South Ferry Loop, and a new South Ferry page be created detailing the new terminal station. The new station is expected to open in December 2008 or January 2009, so I don't think this move is too soon. Thoughts? Acps110 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is not very big. The new station can be one or two paragraphs until it opens. When it does, all material about the old loop system can be moved down to a new history section of the same article. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think about the complex, I was thinking about two separate stations, especially since the old station will be closed and has no physical connection to the new station. Since the old station and new are two separate entities, I think they should be on separate pages, eg. South Ferry-Whithall Street (New York City Subway) and South Ferry Loops (New York City Subway). The best way to handle the "history" of South Ferry could be to simply say that the new terminal replaced the old loops which in turn replaced the old elevated station. Links to the former stations instead of including it with the new station. Acps110 (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with that proposal. The loop station should be renamed without a doubt, although this leads me to move the City Hall Station to City Hall Loops. I really don't think we need the (NYCS) suffix for the new name. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with moving City Hall to City Hall Loop at the same time. I'm going to start working up a list of pages that need to be updated with the change to the two new articles for South Ferry. Acps110 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like for the existing South Ferry station to be split out to a new South Ferry Loops page given the fact that it will no longer be active (like City Hall Loop). The history section of the IRT section on the new page should include links to both the former Loops and also the former elevated station of the same name. Unfortunately, the current page lacks a historical connection to the elevated station, which was once just as important (and busier). Acps110 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I was opposed when I didn't realize the BMT would have a free transfer, which is the customary signal to merge two station articles. As for when, I figure a few hours before opening is right. Until then, the BMT and IRT station articles should discuss the coming change, but remain separate as log as the stations are separate. After opening time, we'll still have two articles, but one will be for the combined station and the other for a closed relic of the 20th century. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the implicit deviousness of discussing whether to create a new article, and then moving the discussion to the talk page of that new article, I do support the general idea.
That is, a single article should be made covering Whitehall Street station and the new South Ferry station, and the old South Ferry article would be somehow renamed to reflect its new status.
I do not like the suggested names, however. The current BMT station is already named "Whitehall Street–South Ferry", and using this as the name for the new combined article would lead to ambiguity. As similar as it may seem, I prefer the alternative "South Ferry–Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)", as it expresses the inclusion of both stations yet does not duplicate an existing label that only applies to one of them. In addition, I am very much opposed to the title "South Ferry Loops" for the article on the old station, as the capitalization implies that this is somehow an official name for the structure, when this is very likely not the case. I would suggest something like "South Ferry (New York City Subway loop station)", which clearly differentiates it from the new station but does not pretend that it is called anything other than "South Ferry" and does not resort to something informal like "old South Ferry station".
Finally, there really is no need to make these moves any time before the station actually opens. We are not a newspaper trying to break a story. Prepare it in a sandbox beforehand? Sure. Hell, do it at South Ferry–Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)/Sandbox. But wait until afterwards—at the very least, until the day of.
I agree with Larry's statements (BTW, it's good to see ya around again). I think that naming the new article "South Ferry–Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)" would seem better than the inverse. Also, Larry stated something about capitalization when it comes to renaming the South Ferry loops station. I prefer Acps110's suggestion to rename the loop station to South Ferry loops (New York City Subway), only because there are going to be two stations named South Ferry.
Also, NE2 brings up a good point; it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have a new article up if the station's not even open, and quite frankly, I don't even know the exact opening date. We could sandbox it, just to be safe, so we can make all changes to the sandbox before adding it to the main namespace.
I'll work on a sample at my sandbox, since nothing's being done there. I'll keep tabs to let you guys know what's going on there, but check in periodically. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I support this plan only if the new South Ferry station will provide a direct transfer to Whitehall Street. If not, then I am against it. Honestly, i do not go on Wikipedia often anymore, so I really have no problem with what you guys want to do. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, they might rename it at the last minute. Or there could be another 9/11 that delays the opening by many months. --NE205:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea is pretty good, and i think that it should be executed, but like NE2 said, not until after it's opened. plus, it's only a matter of a few weeks before opening day, so why not wait a bit and see what comes out of this. Until then, this change really should wait.Fan Railer (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
When
I say just make the page when it finally opens. No need to rush it.. -error46146
No big deal either way. The new merged article and new loop article, etc, can be built on site if someone wants. All links from other stations, lines, etc are to remain pointed at the old articles describing the status quo. Opening day, edit the new articles to say they are no longer about the future, repoint the links to the new articles, and then delete the two old separate station articles. Unless someone thinks the loop historical article ought to be created by trimming and renaming the IRT station article. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion
Actually, I think it would be better to complete the discussion here, and I have updated the related pages' merge templates accordingly. You had the "discuss" link pointing to the talk page of the proposed article, which doesn't exist yet. In the event that the merge is rejected, the record of the discussion would be on an "orphaned" talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would not rename City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line). For closed stations, our practice has been to give the article the same name the station had when it was open. That's "City Hall."
For similar reasons, I would not create an article called South Ferry Loops (New York City Subway). The NYCS articles are too balkanized as it is. If there were two articles, a good deal of the history would be repeated. It is better to have one meaty article covering the history and current status of the complex as an integrated topic. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, one more point: I would wait to pull the trigger until the MTA actually publishes a map showing the two linked together. For all we know, they could call the station complex "South Ferry–Whitehall Street," or something to that effect, and then a lot of work would need to be redone. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you around again, TLK. Productive outcomes is what's emanating form the project as we enter 2009, in case you were keeping tabs. Hope to see you aroud when you do make a full time return, and thanks for the heads-up about the subway photo stint. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I just read the article about this "mysterious" station, NE2. You probably should create an article about it, or add it to the Euclid Avenue article or Pitkin Yard. But if I'm correct, the four tracks that make up the line probably lead to this station. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 04:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
