Just an edit-warring IP - possibly from Conrailman. Protection for a few days might not go amiss. Neither image is actually particularly good - I would suggest one of the following:
In regards to the image, I prefer the Bay Ridge Avenue image (third from left). Ninth Avenue isn't even on the R's route, so that's an automatic disqualification in my view. The other two images are okay, but the setting of the Bay Ridge Avenue image appears much brighter and cleaner. But maybe that's because of the recent ESI renovation a year and a half ago. epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the Bay Ridge Avenue image, that one looks pretty clean. I requested temporary semi-protection while this discussion continues to reduce disruption. ComplexRational (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Quick question. Is "39th Avenue–Dutch Kills" the new official name of this station? Or is it just something only on signs, like "52nd Street–Lincoln Avenue" for 52nd Street (IRT Flushing Line)? I'm asking because an anonymous user has recently gone around and changed links to the 39th Avenue article. The subway map hasn't been updated, though, unlike for WTC Cortlandt or for Briarwood. epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I'm not sure what to make of this. Several news articles ([1][2][3] suggest that there is an official renaming (the first link says that the question of official renaming will be answered by the end of February), though it isn't on the official map and it may be limited to signage. I guess we'll have to wait and see, and per WP:CRYSTAL, not suggest that a renaming is official until we have clearer sources. ComplexRational (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I say to keep the name of the article as is for now. We generally go by subway names on the map anyways, and the map says 39th Avenue still. If it changes, I'd be open to move the article to include "Dutch Kills" in the name. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 01:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a subway staircase. I doubt the MTA would allow an exit to be that narrow, with a door leading off of it into the basement of a private building. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
7 waves 4 twenty eight
Does anybody know anything about this artwork? It was installed in 1996, and the artist's website says it's an "animated 3-D mural." However, the photo of the place we have on Wikipedia, shot in 2009, shows that glass wall without any artwork, so does this video made in 2018. Is it still there? If not, when was it removed? Vcohen (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, 28th Street. Didn't that station get ESI'd? I can't recall seeing the artwork there the last time I past through that station. I will confirm later on today or unless someone else has beat me to it. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 17:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vcohen and LRG5784: It's not there anymore. The glass mural was totally removed with the ESI renovation and now there are only the standard glass barriers and turnstiles. epicgenius (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vcohen: Looks good, except I would change "align=right" at the top of the wikitable to "align=center". That way, the text underneath doesn't wrap around the table of external links, like it did with your comment. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I tried to swipe Vcohen's example and add it to the page with "align=center," and I thought it looked good too. A couple of other issues though; We've got two GSV links for mezzanines at 14th Street (Sixth Avenue) BMT and the second one is named "14th Street (Sixth Avenue) BMT (lower mezzanine)." Shouldn't the "14th Street (Sixth Avenue) BMT" mezzanine be named an "upper mezzanine" for that part of the station? Also, I've been considering a new name for "14th Street (Sixth Avenue) mezzanine (Downtown IND)/14th Street PATH." Something about the way that's written out seems a little awkward. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@DanTD: Yeah, I see how it may be awkward. How about "14th Street-6th Avenue mezzanine (BMT)" or "14th Street-6th Avenue mezzanine (downtown IND/southbound PATH)"? Also, the BMT station has two levels above the platform: an upper fare control, and a lower mezzanine. The upper fare control is a few steps below the IND's uptown mezzanine, as you can see here. Another thing I realized, which really is stupid, is that you can't make the free transfer between the BMT and northbound IND platform using these steps; instead, you have to use the stair that goes directly between the platforms. epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The "Sixth Avenue" name is for the line, so I'd go with ""14th Street (Sixth Avenue) mezzanine (downtown IND/southbound PATH)." Actually, while we're at it, capturing some images of the road signs to 14th Street (PATH station) at the intersection of 14th Street and 7th Avenue would be even better. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vcohen: It depends if this is a General Order (a smaller weekend/nighttime closure) or a service change (a major closure that is noted on official schedules and service guides). If it's a GO, the articles typically aren't changed because it would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL to note every minor service outage. If it's a service change or full closure, where the modifications are for a longer period of time, the articles typically are changed.In this case, it looks like the night/weekend shutdown isn't mentioned in the official schedule. Also, this particular GO only lasts for about 7 weeks, so it's relatively minor. For a closure of 5-6 months or more, I might agree with changing the articles. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I am not talking about updating all the affected articles. The question is only about the 14th Street Tunnel shutdown article that describes in a very detailed form the service changes that were planned, states that they have been canceled, and c'est tout. Vcohen (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Vcohen, the free transfers were only shown on the "Proposed Weeknight and Weekend service" map. The text at the top says "the L will continue as normal during peak and midday weekday times". On the other hand, the text right below it doesn't mention restrictions, like you said.I don't know whether the free transfers will occur at all times, or only weekends and late nights, but I don't think there would be much of a need during weekdays when service is operating normally. This might be similar to the Bowling Green/South Ferry transfer during the Clark Street Tunnel shutdown a year ago. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
10-Car R179 Train Completed 30-day Revenue Service Demonstration Test Without Interruption
Bombardier posted on Twitter that the 10-car R179 train completed the 30-day revenue service demo test without interruption. Is it worth it to put in into the R179 page? Chaohwa (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:SkyTrain (Vancouver) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. --Happypillsjr✉07:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Vcohen, the first two images look like they are primarily the Brookfield Place entrance, which then leads into the Hub. So maybe there should be a subcategory for the Brookfield Place entrance. Similarly, the third image is an entrance to 4 WTC. Technically, they are all WTC Hub entrances since it's possible to enter each building and go into the hub. However, that means Fulton Center and most of the Chambers/WTC/Park Place entrances are WTC Hub entrances as well, since you can enter the hub without swiping into the subway. epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Vcohen, I think everything else is correct. The fourth and fifth pictures are direct entrances to the WTC Hub (these are the future 2 WTC entrances but right now it leads to the Oculus). epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
New M train pattern
According to the GTFS dada on the Transit App, the M train will only be serving 96th Street weekday evenings and weekends during the daytime. I think it was supposed to go to 96th during late nights, but due to the L train being a partial shutdown (or slowdown), there’s no need for the M to Manhattan overnights I guess.
Anyways, I will be working on the station listing table for the M article, and this also means we will have to update the Sixth Avenue templates for the M stopping in Manhattan during daytime hours as well. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 19:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
LRG5784, I personally would wait to see what the new M train schedule is before making these changes. The M already ran to 96th Street on the weekends, but it was a General Order rather than a schedule change. The 96th Street service changes will be in place from 6 AM to 1:30 AM on weekends, I think. epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
On the list of Metro-North Railroad rolling stock, there are some images of trains missing. Chief among them is a Pullman 4400 "Washboard" car, one of which is said to be at the Danbury Railway Museum. I mentioned this list on a Flickr image comment to somebody who has a Penn Central-era 4400 car, and as it turns out, the photographer gave me permission to post it here. Now I'm kind of torn about it. 1)I've had too many problems trying to upload my own images from Flickr, so the last thing I want is problems with someone else's images. 2)The fact that it has Penn Central livery rather than New Haven livery may make presenting it as an old NYNH&H car less credible. And yes, I already know that Penn Central bought New Haven, so I don't need any lectures on that. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Important for MTA Content Resources
I hear that the MTA is starting to move content to new URLs, so if we want stuff on the MTA site we should archive them now. Mtattrain (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@LRG5784:Most likely meaning all MTA content will finally move full-time to the (currently) "new.mta.info" site, with the older, existing (2011) website going offline.--Roadrunner3000 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't dealt with stuff in the Capital section, maps, timetables, LIRR and Metro-North and want to deal with the Board Materials. I got a lot of the obscure stuff on the website. Don't forget the TAB.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Closed stations in station layouts?
The {{Infobox NYCS}}|layout= parameters for some Staten Island Railway station articles were recently edited by Pedroperezhumberto to include the closed Atlantic and Nassau stations. The layout for Tottenville station, for example, now reads "to Atlantic". Maybe it'd be useful to include Atlantic there (with some indication that it's closed), but I'd think the primary thing would be the next open station.
(For anyone checking, the Tottenville article actually uses the |map= parameter, which seems to do the same thing. The {{Infobox NYCS}} documentation could use an update on these two parameters, but that's another discussion.)
@Pedroperezhumberto: Thanks, I see you've changed those |layout= parameters in response to this post. Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out to other people, but I wanted to ask others if there was a standard way of dealing with this. Thanks. —Languorrises (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm rather new to the Wikipedia scene, however I've been reading up on guidelines and the MOS and decided to try my hand at writing an article. I chose MYmta because it seems to be notable enough, with several independent sources reporting on it and there already being an article about Bus Time, and the article is currently in my userspace. I'm looking for any suggestions or edits, particularly relating to expanding out the history section for the app. I've based the form of the article partially off the article on MTA Bus Time, and it also seems the apps section of the main article on the MTA has some good info. Thanks in advance, Robotxlabs (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to get involved, but where's your 1962 official guide? If the Hempstead Branch trains were the only trains that ever stopped here, leave it at that. If other trains stopped there before then, just use year spans for those trains. It's still on the Main Line of the LIRR even if the LIRR doesn't mention it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@DanTD: Believe me when I say this: I am completely appalled with JHunterJ and his bureaucratic finger-pointing that led to a retooling of our naming convention. I find it disgusting how someone that has never contributed a day in his life to this project just thinks that it's okay to jump in, change something he doesn't like and then leaves. That is exactly what has happened, and now he finally got his wish after eight years. The good thing is we won't have to hear from him again. And sadly, because of the bureaucracy with this online encyclopedia, honestly don't expect much involvement from me either. I am changing my involvement to semi-active and probably going back into semi-retirement again. I'll always be around to give my input and make technical adjustments here and there, but this whole process just left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I don't want to take part in something that I'm not happy with. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm tired of the victim complex and us-against-the-world attitude that you have. This RFC demonstrated clearly that you're not being bullied by one administrator on a power trip; a wide swath of editors with a varying range of backgrounds agreed that NYCS articles should follow broader naming conventions. No one is preventing you from uploading pictures, identifying mystery locations, writing histories, adding citations, or anything else this WikiProject was set up to do. If you wish to stop editing because you don't like that some article titles were slightly changed, fine - but you are the one causing your own tantrum.
If you're this upset about a series of technical moves, you probably need to take a hard look at your priorities and why you are so emotionally attached to a certain style of article titling. When USSTATIONS was first introduced, I was upset as well - but very soon it became clear that the moves weren't negatively affecting my ability to edit articles, and were in fact much clearer to the general audience that I was supposed to be writing for. (Plus, the simultaneous efforts on the backend templates, and bots to fix double redirects, have greatly smoothed the process). My attachment to the old names was simply because I was used to them (and felt some ownership over the articles), not because they were actually better. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I honestly don't believe that I do have to think about why you think I'm "emotionally attached" to them. I've been giving you the reasons every time the decision to screw things up was addressed in an RM. Also, the naming conventions only became unique to WP:NYPT after you people enforced the current standards of naming conventions on other systems. The refusal to add new material is a conscious decision on my part. -------User:DanTD (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone sets the limits of their participation on this project. If article titles are your breaking point, then so be it. However, if you're going to walk away, then walk away. Mackensen(talk)14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I know what you are referring to. It was easier to do this way because of the list you created for renaming pages, which is here It saves a lot of time because of the links.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: Though I can see why you are moving the Bx12 and Bx15 articles due to WP:PRECISION, the guideline also says Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Nearly all articles about singular NYC bus routes have the qualifier (New York City bus) since they are actually ambiguous (e.g. M23 (New York City bus) vs M23). On the other hand, articles about two or more bus routes would be suffixed "bus", e.g. M5 and M55 buses.
While I see a desire for precision, it would not clearly identify the subject as a bus route. Something like Bx12 bus, etc. may work, but I want to bring this up for discussion among the wider NYCPT community. epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Kew Gardens 613, I understand. This was a compromise but I'm willing to keep this discussion open in case there's a consensus to move these pages elsewhere, or back to their previous titles with disambiguators. epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to go with Kew Gardens 613's objections. The M55 (New York City bus) link that's now redirected to M5 and M55 buses previously had a note with the following message:
"This is a redirect from a New York City bus route to a related article. For routes in the London area, use {{R from London bus route}}. For other areas use {{R from bus route}}."
We clearly have these templates for London, NYC, and other municipalities to prevent misdirects to other articles named M5, M23, M55, Bx12, Bx15, Q60, B23, S53, etcetera. Not only that we have former route numbers from ex-private companies that redirect to them. Using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC is a rotten idea. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
They are distinct types of rolling stock, unlike the R32s and R32As, and are publicly identified as different in MTA documents, so no.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Theoallen1: I implemented a temporary fix using another template; those appear to be used to generate the content in that column. The more precise template depicting only daytime service at those stations does not seem to exist, and I am not well-versed in template syntax, so I cannot create it myself. Maybe another user at this project is? ComplexRational (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, the A article at Broad Channel has the S omitted, the F at Lex/63 does not show the M while the M shows the <6> there.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Done
Enquiry: Helvetica or Standard?
I have noticed that according to the current subway map, the subway bullets use the Standard (Akzidenz-Grotesk) typeface.
I don't have much energy to do big projects now, but wonder if anyone could explore the idea of updating the bullet template to use Standard, and possibly the reorganisation of the categories by typeface?
I am also kind of tempted to suggest a clearer naming scheme, along the lines of “NYCS bullet 7 Helvetica.svg” or “NYCS bullet 7D, Standard.svg”.
@Minoa:I would love for something like that to happen. We already have some of the subway bullets with the Akzidenz-Grotesk typeface in place already, maybe we should go around and add the rest of them. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@LRG5784 and Minoa: I would support uploading Standard typeface, but oppose any name change for now. There are many templates that rely on the existing naming scheme, and this needs wider discussion before we go and change any file names. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, we are not rushing through this because I only just found out the correct dimensions of the subway bullets and diamonds, by studying the unsecured MTA PDFs via FontForge. The heights are: 1,000 for the circle, 1,200 for the diamond, and 504 for the X-height. The distance from the bottom of the circle to the base of the letter is 252, and the margin is 25 on all adges. I think the heights for the Helvetica version may be slightly different, but I am not sure. I will probably start production as soon as possible, but uploading will come later as I wish to know if I can use the new naming format for new files only. --Minoa (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Minoa: There are some existing bullets that have the Akzidenz Grotesk typeface and at the end of the file name it has "-alt", if anything we can just follow that pattern for these new bullets. No rush though, take your time! —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 11:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; so far I have all the current bullets, plus the obsolete 9 and V, and the future T. In fact I may even be able to complete the alphabet and numbers if I had the NYCTABullet font, or at least know the official specs for 0, 8, K, I, O, P, SIR, U, X and Y — most of them appear as reserves on the rollsigns of R32/A or R62A. --Minoa (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@LRG5784 and Epicgenius: (EDIT: Forgot to inform users of update, sorry) I have just completed the whole set, including the R32/A and R62 bullets. If it is okay, I wish to upload them as new files on the Commons: this would allow for a smooth transition on the Wikimedia projects. --Minoa (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Minoa, I just saw this. I'm fine with you uploading the new files to Commons. However, it would be great if all the new files had a similar naming format, if you haven't uploaded these already. epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: That's true, but I think the vast majority of the uses would actually be through the infobox and {{rint}} (which would explain the relatively low number of uses in articles). The Act of Parliament one is due to some bad formatting in the first paragraphs of § Stages of a bill, and it's not clear to me if most of that text is really supposed to be there.
Ah, the infamous gauntlet track crash. I am surprised that there is article on this. When I have time (I have several school assignments) I can help with this. Thanks for your work!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I want as my next project, add succession templates to all of New York Subway stations. I started that, but I got pushback twice. One of them suggested that we are gonna use "adjacent stations" instead of the traditional s-line. That's fine. If anyone wants to confirm or give any suggestions.
ok so, it's definitely gonna be "adjacent station". Me personally, I think these templates would be super helpful for NYCS, organized by service, given how there's multiple services along the same line, some skipping some stops, it's a great help in my opinion to have it visualized like that.Nima Farid (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the succession templates should not be formatted to include services such as B, D, etc. (i.e. include each service on a separate line) if we were to use them on NYC Subway articles. This is because services can be changed very often. I'd rather have something where the services are flexible, like this:
{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=NYCS}}
{{s-line|system=NYCS|line=BMT Nassau Street Line|previous=Canal Street (Nassau)|next=Essex Street|type2=Jamaica Center}}
{{s-end}}
{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=NYCS}}
{{s-line|system=NYCS|line=BMT Nassau Street Line|previous=Canal Street (Nassau)|next=Essex Street|type2=Jamaica Center}}
{{s-end}}
So if the J train, for example, no longer runs to that station, all we need to do is change the "BMT Nassau Street Line" entry in Template:NYCS lines. If we went with the "services" version, you would need to remove every instance of
{{s-line|system=NYCS|line=J|previous=Canal Street (Nassau)|next=Essex Street}}
in every single station infobox where the J train is mentioned, every time there is a service change.
However, I don't think it would be a great use of our time if we spent all this time converting the {{NYCS next}} templates to an adjacent-stations format. We already have a succession template, {{NYCS next}}, which we use to handle all the frequent service reroutes. It also isn't necessary to show the routes' ultimate destinations in the infobox, since all of these have a "station layout" section where each route is depicted with their destination, usually in even greater detail. epicgenius (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Interchange icons
Hi all. I recently added a new interchange icon for AirTrain JFK and was going around implementing it when I noticed that most NYCS routemap templates do not have any interchange icons for other systems at all. Is there a reason for this, and would anyone object to me adding them? Best, WMSR (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Understood. Adding interchanges to other systems to service (not line) templates. Should this include interchanges with other services? WMSR (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Changing "R33WF" to "R33S," and incorporating "R36WF" to "R36"
According to MTA documents during the 1980s (found by @Kew Gardens 613:), when all old cars were being overhauled, the "R33WF" cars were constantly referred to as R33S. By extension, all R36s (whether they had the R33-style windows or the R32-style ones) were referred to as R36s. Mtattrain (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Really? Because I've always felt that if these are World's Fair-specific cars, they should be left as such. We've got them for the Lo-V's we should keep them for the R33 and R36 World's Fair cars. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
> @DanTD: yes, for example in this 1989 MTA Board meeting agenda: [5]. "R33WF" cars are referred to as R33S and "R36WF" cars are simply referred to as R36. Mtattrain (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
F express
@DanTD, Kew Gardens 613, LRG5784, Mtattrain, and Vcohen: Should we include the F express in other subway service templates, e.g. {{NYCS Sixth}}? This would be similar to an implementation on {{NYCS Lexington}}. I think, however, that the service pattern may not be significant enough to warrant inclusion since it is only four trains per day with a slightly different service pattern in part of Brooklyn. epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I just tested them out. Right now, what is being shown on the Seventh Avenue station (IND Culver Line) article (and several other articles) is that the next stops on the express service are shown with a regular "F" symbol (just like the local service). I think this should be acceptable for the current scope of the service, and should not confuse readers. This is contrasted with the 61st Street–Woodside station, where the "<7>" symbol is used for the previous and next stops (unlike the local "7"). These would cause small inconsistencies; however, the F express is not frequent enough to be called its own service, as opposed to the <6>, <7>, or even the A to Rockaway Park and the Z. epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say to include the <F> in all the templates that include daytime F service. Even though the service is limited, it's still a scheduled service so why not include it? I provided the same argument in regards to listing terminals that a route does not normally serve, but if it's scheduled to operate there and is part of the system pick which means it is semi-permanent, it has some encyclopedic value and should be noted. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 23:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I think for headers, we should just display whatever bullets are on the sign outside of the station. That would mean no diamond templates. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Diamond bullets are never used on station entrance signs, only on the platform. I don't think there is even <F> signage on many platforms, though, unlike for the 6 and 7 versions. If this were true, stations as far away as Jamaica–179th Street station would mention the express in its platform signage. epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is only day one. http://new.mta.info is specifically pointing out the <F> in good service, so I think this'll stick.
Weird. Considering it's midday (2:40 pm now), i wouldn't expect http://new.mta.info to be displaying the F express to be in good service, but the 6 and 7 express is not showing. Given it only has 2 trips the F express would either be in "good service" or "running local" anyway. epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You are funny. There is no way that this is going to last a year. This was designed to fail! 20 minute gaps in service from Culver local stops to Coney Island. Holds at the end of the line. This will probably be the shortest lived use of a subway bullet. I have had my fun.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd bet that within a year this will be quietly discontinued. Who knows? Maybe the MTA will keep running two trains in each direction per day on the express tracks, but not as a service with its own bullet. epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If the switch at Kings Highway allowed local trains to reach the express track south of the station before entering it going northbound, then F Express service could continue to Kings Highway. This would probably be implemented in the next year or two when they redo the switch for signal modernization. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 17:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I always thought signs like this were around a lot longer. At least since the 1970's the early days of Helvetica. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The F Express is shown at a few places in the timeline for the E at Brianwood / 75 Av, M at 63rd Lex / 57th, and N on Jay St. These transfers do not exist.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Without actually reading that page, I can see swaths of unreferenced text and an orange box. I'd say please don't put it up for FL. Kingsif (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah - none of the "List of New York City Subway stations in XXX" articles are even at a GA quality, let alone FL. I haven't even had the chance to add references to that page yet, and it looks like none of the other WP:NYCPT members have, either.
@Happypillsjr: I highly suggest that you read the eligibility criteria for GA and FL first, and have a mentor help you with GA reviews. Unfortunately, the 1 train's GA review had to be reopened because you passed the article despite there being {{citation needed}} tags and grammar errors on the page. Furthermore, you were considering failing the article for a "copyright violation" even though a cursory search would have found evidence of reverse copying, such as ref numbers (like [1][2][3]) on the other page.
As for GA nominations, you previously nominated Talk:Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Talk:Queensboro Plaza station and Talk:L (New York City Subway service) for GA status, even though none of these were up to GA criteria. Three separate users removed your nominations on those pages. I really think you should take a break from nominating or reviewing any articles for quality status, because there are pretty serious discrepancies in both. I do not mean this in a bad way - I really think you should have a mentor help you improve an article first before nominating anything else. Please, seriously consider this, because you really need more experience before nominating anything else. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Curious, are project members interested in having a collaboration of the month? We can all work together to improve a Wikipedia article related to New York City Public Transportation each month. Hopefully, we could even promote articles to quality status. For many of the articles, there's not an overwhelming amount of coverage, so I could see us having success expanding them to GA quality.--Happypillsjr✉02:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a commendable thing in theory. However, I don't think it will work in practice, since the most active members of this project are usually at school/work. Also, having a "collaboration of the month" just seems less fun than a more unstructured article improvement, but that's my personal take. epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613 and Tdorante10: It appears as though many of the Queens bus routes will be restructured entirely. As per the draft report of the Queens bus redesign, all of the routes will likely have a "QT-" prefix, and many existing Q routes will be divided into at least two new QT routes. epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Nice find! Probably worthy of a new section "Proposed redesign" in List of bus routes in Queens. Just remember that "QT" is an internal disambiguation system from existing routes within the document (p. 24). Now, if only the subway would be redesigned with some of this in mind... ComplexRational (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Still not sure how old Q10, Q23, and Q64 should be handled. As for the QT suffix, they will be deleted from the final version. epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I want to create some articles and diagrams about former IRT and BMT stations in the Russian Wikipedia. I am using the English Wikipedia as my main source, because it is the most available, though considered not reliable. While I read it, different questions arise, and I'd like to ask them here.
When speaking about existing subway lines, we are aware of the difference between a (physical) line and a (train) route. In articles about former stations this difference is sometimes not as clear. For example:
"Battery Place was a station on the long-demolished Ninth Avenue and Sixth Avenue elevated train lines... The station had two tracks,"
"Chatham Square was an express station on the demolished IRT Third Avenue Line... The lower level... served trains of both the IRT Second Avenue Line and IRT Third Avenue Line. The upper level... served trains of both lines going to and from City Hall,"
"City Hall was a station on the IRT Second Avenue Line, which also served trains of the IRT Third Avenue Line... The lower level served Third Avenue trains... The upper level served Second Avenue trains..."
Each of these stations served trains of two lines (today we would say, two routes). How can I determine which line each station belonged to? As I see in the examples above, number of tracks or number of routes served is not a criteria. Vcohen (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The distinction between a line and a service largely exists after the old Els were torn down, and service patterns weren't so systemized then. Saying they served lines is probably the correct way to go. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. That means, I have to think about article names. They will be red links, but still there will be a map referring to them. Vcohen (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Station complex vs. single station for former stations
Like in the previous question, when speaking about existing subway lines, we are aware of the difference between a station complex (consisting of several stations) and a single station (even sitting on several lines, like Coney Island or Queensboro Plaza). And like in the previous question, in articles about former stations this difference is sometimes not as clear.
I guess that the lower level of Gun Hill Road, the lower level of Ninth Avenue and the closed/demolished platforms of Atlantic Avenue were parts of single stations.
@Vcohen: I would say that if the platforms aren't directly on top or parallel to one another (like Coney or Queensboro), then they can be counted as part of a separate complex, as in Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction. epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
That is an interesting question. If they are on separate levels and perpendicular, then I think these count as separate stations, following the examples of Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction. As for L-shaped platforms on the same level, I would personally classify them as one station, even though there are no such examples today. epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Franklin Avenue–Fulton Street station#BMT Fulton Street Line platforms - this one is a real enigma. First of all, the article presents two stations that co-existed from 1896 till 1940, were consecutive (at least for Brighton Line trains) and connected by free transfer. How can such a thing be? Besides, the text has some typos that I cannot interpret: the station "had a third track along the south the point", and "making a two sided platform at right angles As with the Franklin Street platforms". Could anybody fix the article?
It looks like a lot of data is missing. @Kew Gardens 613: do you happen to know about any of the free transfers?
@Vcohen: I have fixed the Franklin-Fulton article. The platform was L-shaped, and immediately east of the station, the Franklin Avenue tracks diverged southward. I think there should be a track map for this, but can't find it. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but the article still shows the BMT Franklin Avenue Line and BMT Fulton Street Line stations as two separate ones. Did they co-exist, or were they two versions of one station in different years? Vcohen (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We could, but we should distinguish between the current Franklin Avenue platforms and the former Fulton Street platforms. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the Battery Park station? Here such a station is mentioned as a station on the Lexington Avenue Line, not far from Whitehall Street. Here the inner loop of South Ferry is labeled Battery Park. Since the loops had no free transfer, could they bear different station names?
That first author (I fixed the link) is just reminiscing. He might have meant Bowling Green Station as easily as South Ferry; they're both near Battery Park and the Whitehall Street induction center. In that second link, station names all appear to be boxed, so I don't think Battery Park is meant to be a station name; it looks like it has to with the symbol next to it, but I don't know what that symbol means. I did find one old map here that shows the Lex and 7th lines as separate stations, but both are labeled identically as "South Ferry (Battery Park)". All other maps just use South Ferry. I don't think there ever was a "Battery Park Station". Station1 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to add details about the 1991 service cuts that became sidelined to their respective articles. I would be going by the same link I provided for a source that I added about the skip stop proposal made for the L train (here is the link). You can see paragraphs I prepared on my sandbox page. Let me know what you guys think. Stay safe everyone. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 15:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
LRG5784, that is a pretty good suggestion. Thanks for the link. As long as you include the specific page numbers in the reference, I'd say these additions are all right. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Second Avenue Subway R train
Does anyone have a current schedule confirming that the single northbound R train that goes to 96 St on the Second Avenue Subway before turning around as a Q is actually still running? Because the most recent public timetable doesn't list it anymore, while the N train timetable does list the handful of N trains that do use the SAS to short turn (well, sorta short turn, as it's not really that much shorter). Of course, verifying that is already more difficult because of the pandemic-related essential service that the MTA is currently running, but even so, the most recent schedule from the official MTA site, dated November 2019, does not include it, meaning the claim fails verification. If not, then our article on the R, the SAS, and the four relevant stations are outdated, and need to remove that. oknazevad (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The 96th Street R trip is not included because it would normally leave 95th Street at 7:05, and the times between 6:51 and 8:36 are omitted because I guess the times are repetitive (and also to save space). Right before the essential service plan was initiated, I as well as my friends have seen the 96th Street R operate, but we obviously can't go by hearsay. The schedules on trip planner have been updated to show the R operating every 12 minutes therefore the 96th Street trips aren't a thing right now (and won't be until this pandemic is over), and the same goes for the Limited N's as well. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 12:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Do we have a reliable source to verify that? And even if we do, do we really need to note one strange short turn trip? It's so minor that I think either way we can safely just omit it. It's the sort of hyper obsessed detail that can be called "rivet counting", and including it on, say, the map in the infobox for the R service is only likely to confuse readers who might think it's more than just one trip that off those rails within minutes once a day. And even then, it's still unverified without a source. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I think with this being an encyclopedia, we should include whatever information that pertains to the subway routings even if it's minute details. Anything like a short-term service change (like a night where a train that normally goes local runs express instead), or a reroute that occurs due to a random incident (like a 5 train via Lexington) should not be included. I would rather us be detailed as possible. In the case of the limited runs being suspended because of the pandemic, we can remove/hide them for the time being. Would love to hear what others have to say though. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 16:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Generally, if the service change is for less than 4 months, I would consider it to be news and wouldn't change the info per WP:NOTNEWS. If it's for more than 6 months, I would change the info, since it has lasting notability. epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That's a pretty good rule of thumb. But that's not my question. My question is do we have something to verify the existence of the trip, as there's nothing in the article that does, and I can't really find anything outside of Wikipedia mirrors that even mention it. And even if we can, is it really notable enough to mention, or is it an excessive detail? oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
oknazevad, if it cannot be verified at all (in GTFS data or timetables) then the trip probably no longer exists. Furthermore, I don't think we should mention one- or two-trip-a-day services in the stations' articles. The 2/5 on the New Lots Line, or the W in Brooklyn, may be fine since they are more frequent. epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
A supplement schedule is currently in effect, meaning that rush hour trips like this are not currently running. I am opposed to removing it from articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm nit even talking about the current essential service, though. We have nothing in the article that verifies its existence for "normal" operations. That's a problem. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Oknazevad:I just looked at the article and it appears that the link that points to the interval that the R train would make out of Brooklyn to 96th Street in Manhattan is dead. I did dig through the archives and came across this link that has the list different subway routes as well as the intervals they make and their destinations, even including limited services. It is accurate and based off the MTA's GTFS data under NORMAL services because since the L and M's service patterns were revised as of this past weekend, it does not show the alternate L's terminating at Lorimer Street in Brooklyn and it no longer shows M trains going to 96th Street on the weekends. In addition, it shows the M train originating and terminating at Essex Street weekday evenings, with the last train leaving Metropolitan Avenue to Forest Hills at 8:37, when before, according to the timetable, the last train would leave Metropolitan Avenue to Forest Hills at 9:32, and the last train to 96th Street would leave Metropolitan Avenue at 12:12. So in theory, we have something to go by that we can verify that these trips are a thing, but under normal circumstances. But as of right now, nothing in the MTA is normal, and to make a quick joke, it probably never even was at any point in existence. I would not mind editing the articles to reflect the accuracy of the limited trips. Although the website that we are using is the best source, I know a way of including it in the article without making it out to be a timetable per se. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station article is still listing the M train as another's and weekend service in the infobox. Of course, removing it is near impossible because of the over reliance on templates that have become a thing for NYC Subway related articles. Where the bloody hell is that info even stored in the first place! Anyway, regardless of that, it definitely needs to be updated, and the outdated temporary M service removed.
While I was looking to check on stuff after that, I also got to thinking that even with the M removed, the routes list is a pretty poor representation as currently configured. The routes list should always lead with full time services at any station, and not with a route that has a couple of rush hour trains that usually have another line as their main route. In other words, the N, which barely serves the station and is a literal footnote in the schedule, should not be listed before the Q, which sends every single train to that station. And I'm still not convinced that one rush hour R train actually exists anymore, let alone should even be listed at all. It's not even a footnote in the schedule, it's an oddity that plain isn't worthy of inclusion in the infobox.
I get that we want to be compete, but we really got to stop worrying so much about it that we lose site of the principal services. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
In regards to the one R train to 96th Street, it's back up and running again. It's the 6:59 out of Bay Ridge. I know how to get it fixed since it appears no one else has gotten to it yet. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
MTA timetable colors
The NYCS has used a new shade of red on their 1 and 2 services, as compared to the 3 timetable from last year. Is this worth discussing, since their official color pallets are on the old MTA website? Cards8466421:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
E train to Jamaica/Van Wyck
As part of the near two-month service change that has weekday E service split between 179th Street and Jamaica/Van Wyck weekdays, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to reflect that in the article. The subway map was updated to reflect the service change, so I don't see why not, considering we did the same thing for when the A and H when the Rockaway flood mitigation project was taking place. So we have precedent to do the same thing again. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the details for the service change. All that needs to be done is update the stations and templates affected. I plan on getting those done before the end of the day, but if anyone else would like to get a head start, feel free to go ahead. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 20:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Novelization featuring this project's contributors
Check out Infodemic, a novelization of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community. This is by WP:Stephen Harrison, who does Wikipedia journalism.
Should we update Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Accessibility to remove steps 5.1 and 6? Step 5.1 currently says "The ADA station succession needs to be added to the infobox" and step 6 says "In the successive stations; the "next ADA station" needs to be updated in the infobox". Cards84664 is currently removing these successive stations on the basis that it is trivial information. I'm inclined to agree, but since this info has largely been in the WP:NYCS page since 2006, I'm opening this discussion to see if any longtime users object. Epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this section. My main rationale for this removal is based on the interpretation of "service". Station succession applies to service bullets, former stations, and former line connections. These examples are directly adjacent, local and express. The subway does not host super-express services for these accessible stations specifically. For example, another parameter alongside accessibility in the "Other Information" section is wireless service. You would not expect to see a station succession section navigating the stations that have WiFi access.Cards8466419:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
As much as it was a delight for us railfans, the Joe Korner site was really never acceptable as a Wikipedia source per WP:SPS. And since Joe's passing a couple of years ago is no longer updated, meaning its info is missing key items regarding car retirements. We really should replace those references with something that better fulfills WP:RS requirements, such as the official reports that Joe used to use for his sources, which should be available buried somewhere on the MTA website (being a public agency and all).
Of course, they might not be available quite as quickly, but that is okay. We don't need to have everything, such as far assignments, up-to-the minute perfect, as that level of detail is probably a bit too detailed for an encyclopedia anyway. oknazevad (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I think there are Electric Railroaders' Association newsletters that we can use an acceptable reference. We already cite them in several articles now. And I believe that Korman, being a former worker for the business, used ERA as a source as well. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Ooo, good call. I've seen the ERA newsletter sources, and they fit any reasonable definition of a reliable third-party source. They're essentially the perfect choice presuming we can get consistent access. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the service changes to the C and F (C train operating on a Saturday schedule on weekdays and the disappearance of the Kings Highway dropouts and the limited <F>'s) are now permanent for the foreseeable future. There was a New York Daily News article that covered this released a few days ago. So I am wondering how we can cover this news in the respective articles, and yes it is a direct result of the pandemic. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It's worth to add that the station is listed as accessible and the elevator making it accessible is not other than "on SW corner of Greenwich St and Vesey St." OK, let the elevator be inside the building under construction and not visible from outside. But I am looking at least for an accessible pedestrian gate in the fence and a sign near it. Vcohen (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe so. Per this link, Publication and other forms of distribution: The original measured drawings and most of the photographs and data pages in HABS/HAER/HALS were created for the U.S. Government and are considered to be in the public domain. However, occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages. These materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source, and it may be necessary to receive permission from the owner of such material before it can be published. In all cases the courtesy of an acknowledgment is requested if material is used in a publication. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, but I still need help. In order to upload a file from the Library of Congress, I need its ID (to put it in the "LOC-image" template) and its date. I tried to find them on the page linked above, then I found another address and tried to find them there, but failed both times. Vcohen (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The NYC subway and the Google street map entrances
I am Italian, I love NYC and above all the mytichal NYC subway. I know that also you are a great lovers of the NY subway and maybe you can help me. I think that wiki is a fantastic thing and should not be a dictatorship! I love the NY subway and NYC stations pages. But there is a problem. A wikipedia's administrator, incredibly threatened to block me from editing only because I updated the old (many of the 2009...) images of the subway entrances, I just put other subway entrances (see the 59th St Columbus Circle, Fulton Center and 42nd Times Square stations for example) and above all I put subway entrances and platform images where there were images of streets without stations or even restaurant interiors...(only for example, to see the Franklin Street station)! I lost a lot of hours (and many nights) in this huge work because I love the NYC subway. I also love Wikipedia and I think that is it necessary to correct the evident errors. In many images it wasn't possible to see many entrance stairs and I, with an infinite patience, have updated them! I think that these were important contributions to improve the NY subway page and as a thank you now I can't see the subway entrances of Google streets on the wiki pages... Now this person is taking off all the google map street view entrances of the NY subway stations!!! Absurd! I think that these images were very useful because in the many NY subway sites we can to see only the stations, but my goal was put also all the subway entrances! (YOU CAN SEE THE OLD WIKI PAGE OF 24 August 2021 OF THE 59TH ST-COLUMBUS CIRCLE STATION WITH ALL THE ENTRANCES in the Google Maps Street View section, FOR EXAMPLE - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=59th_Street%E2%80%93Columbus_Circle_station&oldid=1040487147). And this is only 1 example (you can see the old pages of Times Square, Fulton Center stations etc) I updated and added ALL the subway entrances of the 1-2 and 3 lines after many nights without sleeping ONLY for an ENORMOUS PASSION and WITHOUT INTEREST, but this has been his only answer:
Short answer; we don't need Google streetview links to every subway station. Wikipedia is not a directory or a transit guide. Most of the other links in the External links section should be removed per WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
P.S. If you see this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Street_station_(IRT_Lexington_Avenue_Line) it is easy to notice an huge error: if you click on the 125th Street entrance from Google Maps Street View (in the external links section), you don't see an entrance in the street, but a platform... And this is just a simple example of the many errors in these NY subway stations pages. Now, if I correct these errors, he can block me. I don't think that this is the right attitude to improve Wikipedia... What do you suggest me to do? Thanks for your possible help.
Very many people were enjoying my enormous work to seek and put the many NYC subway entrances. When in 2019 I have been in the most important city in the world and I taken your fantastic subway at all hours, even if I am a huge lover of it, it wasn't easy to find the right entrance and therefore, when I saw that on wiki somebody had had this fantastic idea, I was very happy and I wished to contribute. If I deleted some previous images, it was because in that pictures often it was not possible to see the entrance or also because with 1 only image I was trying to show all the STAIRS and also the fantastic GREEN (entrance always open 24/7) and RED lamps typical of the NYC subway, but also the beautiful NYC skyscrapers on background!!! I realize that for the persons which aren't passionate of the NY subway it it may not be important, but it is however USEFUL. When I saw that the wikipedia' administrator deleted the subway entrances of the Times Square, Columbus Circle, Fulton Center etc it has been an heart attack for me and for my sleeping nights to seek and add, but also to update the many entrances of these fantastic stations! I hope that my old images on the 1-2 and 3 lines can be restored and that the administrator will be able to allow us to put the entrances of all the lines and to improve these wiki pages. Thank you and excuse me for my incorrect English...
I HOPE THAT YOU CAN HELP ME TO RESTORE ALL THE FANTASTIC AND USEFUL IMAGES OF THE ENTRANCES OF THE NYC SUBWAY STATIONS ON Google Maps Street View! Thank you. A great passionate of the NYC subway. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
You are Italian, I am Hebrew and Russian. I like this topic, like you, and I tried to maintain Street View links in these articles, like you (even fixed one of them after your edit some days ago). I see both your edits and the edits of the administrator, including his message on your talk page. It's a serious problem, because he is referring to a policy. There have been several such issues, mostly related to article names, and every time the rule/policy supporters won, and this project members left the project. This is why this page is so empty and I am the first to reply. Vcohen (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Vcohen, I am sure that if we involve more people we can be successful above all because it is an common sense problem. Street View links are public, therefore if we put them on wiki is ONLY to ease many subway riders (not only tourists...) in a very difficult system like the NYC subway. Thank you again for your support! Forza NYCFC !!(talk) 18:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Are you a Zenit fan? Are you a NYCFC fan?
I hope somebody will join this discussion and explain you in other words what I said about policies and project members... Zenit is the champion, if you ask me, because it is a soccer team from my native city, but I am not interested in sports. Vcohen (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I too agree with the inclusion of Street View links. They serve a valuable purpose in understanding the station layout, and supplement the prose for that purpose. Because the Street View links have been specifically aimed to show an entrance, they provide much more information for readers than the geohack links automatically generated from the coordinates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that these links provide much useful information. But anyway, none of us is in a hurry to argue with the administrator... Vcohen (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I directed Forza here, and for what it's worth, I also agree with including street view links, if not coordinates to each exit. I prefer street-view links for 3 reasons:
Coordinates are clunky (as they require 2 clicks to reach the street view), whereas street-view only requires one click
Coordinates can't be placed easily into prose or external links, unlike the current street-view links, which fit well into external links sections.
Street-view links are already directed at entrances, like Pi mentions above.
But I do also see the reason why this may give the appearance of violating the external links policy. Unfortunately, like Vcohen said, policy often wins out in these types of discussions, which is why so many people have given up the wikiproject over these various article-naming disputes. Furthermore, the WP:EL policy in this case doesn't really help the reader, per the essay Wikipedia:Readers first. Not all entrances are obvious, such as those to the 191st Street station for instance, so the street views definitely help the reader there. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for you great support, Epic! I still hope that it will be possible to put all the street view links, but I understood that also Wiki, like so many other things in the world, is small dictatorship and who has a little power he absolutely wants to exercise it, even if my only aim was to improve these wiki pages...However, yesterday I started to put all the NYC subway entrances in a my personal page on
Word.
P.S. Can I at least report some errors on the actual street view links which still there are on the wiki pages? Can you correct them?
1)If you see this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Street_station_(IRT_Lexington_Avenue_Line) it is easy to notice an huge error: if you click on the 125th Street entrance from Google Maps Street View (in the external links section), you don't see an entrance in the street, but a platform...
2)In the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street station article there is written that the station's upper and lower levels are about 140 feet (43 m) and 155 feet (47 m) deep respectively, making the station among the system's deepest, but in the initial card there is written that the depth is 100 feet (30m)...
3) Can you update the 43rd Street and Lexington Avenue via Hyatt Hotel and the 42nd Street and Third Avenue entrances in the Grand Central–42nd Street station page?
Thanks. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Times Square - 42nd St./PA Bus Term. and 5th Ave./42nd St. - Bryant Park superstation
So we have a superstation complex as of this morning and the articles have not been merged. It is now possible to enter fare control at Sixth Avenue on 42nd Street and walk underground to Eighth Avenue and not have to even take the subway once. The only thing that makes this transfer different from others is it's not open full time, considering the Shuttle is closed at night. How do we go about merging this article that's going to yield an unwieldy long name? Or should we just leave it untouched? Would love to hear others' suggestions. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
If we merge the articles, we get two stations on the 7 train sitting in one article, I wouldn't like to have such a situation. The fact that the new transfer will be closed during late nights gives us a reason not to merge them. Vcohen (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wait for the new ridership figures to come out, this partially depends on how the MTA will define this new connection. Cards8466421:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
LRG5784, I was going to bring this up on Discord, but basically we should leave this untouched, as it would make an fairly long article even longer. The Times Square/42nd Street page is now sitting at 38k prose bytes, so it's not too long. However, per WP:SIZESPLIT a split would be considered for anything larger than 50k prose bytes, which the combined article almost certainly would be (the Bryant Park/42nd Street page is 8k prose bytes, so anything else would probably push it over 50k and make it more unwieldy than necessary).Actually, a similar situation goes for the Chambers/WTC/Cortlandt page, which is now a proper mess, but still isn't long enough to warrant splitting just yet. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Vcohen on this one. This is one of the cases where we just note the walking transfer and call it a day. Because at least with Park Place/Chambers Street/Cortlandt Street, at least that complex has transfers open full-time. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Though the Bryant Park passageway is in fare control, I don't think we should base our decision solely on whether the passage is closed at night. That would be awkward if the MTA decided to make the passageway full-time. It would be better just to mention the walking transfer but not combine the articles, like Mackensen said. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Having used this this morning for the heck of it (I seem to have luck with timing in these things), it really should remain separate, if only because there are two separate 7 train stops, meaning it is not considered one station by the MTA. oknazevad (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The first exit is at the northern end of the station. It has a customer assistance booth with a bank of turnstiles and long passageway to a set of doors leading to the basement of 28 Liberty Street. A wide staircase leads to an unmarked entrance/exit at the east side of Nassau Street at Cedar Street. Though signs at this entrance/exit say it leads to Cedar and William Streets, which are right outside the building, it does not go to that intersection and the building entrance has no signs informing people that there is a subway entrance inside. This entrance is only open on weekdays and also provides access to the Broad Street station (J and Z trains) and the Wall Street/Broadway station (4 and 5 trains).
The words I painted in red look like a mistake. This is the entrance at Nassau/Cedar, and this is the entrance at Cedar/William. None of them is "unmarked," both have "signs informing people that there is a subway entrance inside," and the exit from the station does go to both intersections.
It used to be unmarked until Fosun bought 28 Liberty in 2015. I think this is where the confusion comes from. The passageway leads directly to 28 Liberty's basement, which has entrances from Nassau, Liberty, and William Streets, as well to the stair from Cedar and Nassau. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it was incorrect because it was outdated. I'm familiar with the building because I worked on a location shoot for a TV show that was using the building last spring, and the ongoing renovations have included plentiful signage for the Subway station. Probably a selling point for the building to prospective tenants that it has direct Subway access in its own basement. oknazevad (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the entrance at Nassau is marked as 2345JZ and the entrance at William is marked as 23 only. Does the entrance at William lead directly to this station without access to the other two? Should we say about that in the article? The intersection of Cedar and William is not mentioned in the article at all. Vcohen (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
They both lead to the same basement. It's kind of like the Times Square mess where only some services are listed on bullets depending on which entrance is used. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
We know that at the end of the 19th century the IRT and BRT built railway lines that later became part of the subway. Why do we call those lines rapid transit lines? What made them more than just railway lines? Vcohen (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Loop stations
The loop stations City Hall and South Ferry look a kind of unique. Were there attempts to build stations of that type in other cities/countries? Vcohen (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
By the IRT/BRT or for the IRT/BRT?
I am reading two articles. Dual Contracts says: "the IRT and BRT would build... Both the IRT and BRT worked together to make the construction of the Dual Contracts possible." History of the New York City Subway says: "After 1913, all lines built for the IRT and most lines for the BRT were built by the city and leased to the companies." So, who built the lines? Vcohen (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The lines built under the Dual Contracts were owned by the city and operated by the IRT and BMT. In 1940 the city purchased the two companies and began to operate the lines. What about the lines built before the Dual Contracts? Who owned them before 1940? What exactly did the city purchase when speaking about lines that it had not built? Vcohen (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Competition
Regardless of the previous question, the plan for both companies was developed by the city. If so, what was the need to create the IND? And if so, why are we talking about competition between the three companies (for example, when describing the parallel IND Concourse and IRT Jerome Avenue Lines)? Vcohen (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The IND actually replaced many of the older IRT and BMT elevated lines. For example, the Eighth Avenue subway paralleled the IRT Ninth Avenue Line, the Sixth Avenue subway paralleled the IRT Sixth Avenue Line, the Fulton Street subway paralleled the BMT Fulton Street Line, etc. I think contracts 1 and 2 of the IRT and contracts 3 and 4 (i.e. the Dual Contracts) would've been unaffected, since the IRT and BMT had long-term leases on the lines, but I can't say for sure. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The 42 St Shuttle reconstruction project was announced to end in March 2022. In September 2021 the new platforms opened. Did the project continue after that? If it did, did it end in March? Vcohen (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There was still some work on street entrances. One was closed as part of the project, as it led to the now-closed track 4 platform, while a new one opened to replace it. That is what they finished up last month. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Does anyone know if there is an in-system connection between those stations? The 3 and L train maps on the MTA website says there is no longer a free out-of-system transfer between them and I have seen recent YouTube videos of the in-system elevator and passageway, but know they are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2601:B81:790D:2EF3:E811:3C91 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, the free out-of-system connection introduced during the Canarsie Line reconstruction has become permanent, and an in-system connection is under construction. The videos, I guess, are of the ADA-upgrades made at the Livonia Avenue station. Vcohen (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Long-term Queens Boulevard CBTC works affects evening and overnight service
We have a new project in our midst, which means we need to get to work my friends.
F trains are now local in Queens during overnight hours again. I have updated the table to reflect this change. A press release was made regarding this [6]here, and the late night map has been updated to show the F stopping at all Queens Boulevard local stations [7]here. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
R268 car order
The MTA has named the car designation that will replace the R68s ...the R268. I created a stub article for it at R268 based on the information here for proof.
Proposed for deletion (PROD): S59 and S89 buses (Staten Island bus routes)
FYI, the article S59 and S89 buses has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:
"The S59 and S89 constitute a public transit line between either Bayonne or Port Richmond and Eltingville or Tottenville, running primarily along Richmond Avenue. They are both based out of the Yukon Depot."
The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:
My fault for not doing this earlier, but I want to propose merging the B67 and B69 pages. They share around half of their route together, and have interlined frequencies and share a timetable with each other, and considering that other route groups that share this share a page, I was thinking the same could happen for the B67 and B69
Considering that the B67 and B69 are going to be serving both different north and south terminals by next year, you could merge them now, but for the sake of the history of both bus services, it would be best to keep them separated. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 22:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
M86 Gracie Mansion trips
I was doing some research on the M86 bus route and there is no mention of the Gracie Mansion trippers that used to be part of the route. I was looking into old timetable from between 2007 and 2015 that showed the M86 deviating off it's normal route and continuing further to East End Avenue where it would end without any return trips, with return trips being factored in as time went on, either starting at York Avenue/86th Street or at East End Avenue. I could use past editions of the M86 timetable as sources in order to add the information in, which I obtained from the Internet Archive. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 22:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
<F> express
I personally have a problem with this whole <F> express thing. Unlike the respective <6> and <7> expresses, the <F> express is just simply two trains per day in the peak direction during rush hours. Can I please ask if it's possible to get approval for it to be removed entirely and instead just simply mention in the notes, history and lede section of the F train article? Please? Any thoughts? Just curious. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
That's more of an MTA question than a Wikipedia question. As reduced by comparison as it may be, it still has a separate diamond, physical signage, and rollsigns/LEDS consistent with the <5> and <6>. Cards8466414:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Rellmerr, don't get snarky with me first of all. No duh it doesn't even have its own article, but like I said from the beginning, it's just simply two trains a day compared to the <6> and <7> expresses as well as the 5 express in the Bronx. It should only be a note in the F train article. That's all I was asking so save your snarky attitude for someone else. If you have nothing positive to say, then move along. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't snark, it was an actual question. You didn't make clear what you were asking for, it sounded like you were arguing that the <F> shouldn't have an article, and it doesn't. I literally said I'm not sure what you're asking to be removed. You made this note on the project talk page without context, so it needed clarification. That's it. I don't know what got you so upset, but don't take that out on me.
But this has been discussed already. It is mostly a note on the F article. If your argument is that we shouldn't include it as a route on the infoboxes, firstly you should state that explicitly.
Also, this is Wikipedia. Even had I meant what you assumed, this is a collaborative process. We're supposed to discuss even if we disagree, that's how we reach WP:CONSENSUS on a decision like the one you're (unclearly) asking people to make based on your personal feelings.
But if this were a !vote, I'd weakly oppose removing the <F>. Sure it's only four trips a day, but the Z has only 12 or so. What's the cutoff before we include/exclude? -- rellmerr(talk page • contribs)20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Rellmerr Yes, my argument this entire time is that we should not include the <F> express on the info boxes because it's only two trains a day. Plain and simple. So please miss me with "my personal feelings". I do not see why was this so misunderstood or dismissed for. You guys need to think. Just only mention it briefly in the lede section and put a note in the station section of the F train article. The Jay Street–MetroTech, 7th Avenue and Church Avenue station articles can just simply say "the two center express tracks are used by two peak direction rush hour F trips" instead. Also, why are you comparing this to the Z? The J and Z skip-stop services are officially advertised in the official subway map, on platforms and on the MTA's official website and app. Whereas the <F> express hardly isn't, so you can't make that comparison. Is this clear enough for you guys or do you guys need another demonstration? Sheesh. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It appears that there is clear opposition to removing information about the <F> Express. This is an post-hoc mention, but I oppose removing said information as well. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 16:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I am going to refrain from formally voting on this. However, it looks like several users have already given you their feedback above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If it is still relevant, please also count me as opposed to removing that information, per Cards84664. Vcohen (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that what the OP is being bristled by here is that a lot of the articles have special case test/graphics for some instances where it will only be two trains a day - the <F> or the Q/N trains that share half their route during rush hour being obvious examples. I think the thinking is that, while true, it can be confusing to a new reader and might make the overall article a bit harder to quickly get information from. I don't have a solution for this but maybe someone else has some thoughts? Tduk (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
_09.jpg)
_26.jpg)
_03.jpg)
_21_-_WTC_Hub_Entrance%3F.jpg)
