Imdanumber1's suggestion reminded me of something. We have to be careful when we branch out into areas where we have not previously worked (e.g., LIRR). There are surely some hard-working editors who have put a lot of time and effort into these articles, and I don't think they'd appreciate it if we just barged in, declared that the articles are within our scope, and just start making changes as we see fit. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The MTA themselves are some excellent resources since they have addresses for the stations and everything. And as I visit my cousins in Nassau County during Christmas, Winter, Spring and Summer break, they usually stop by LIRR stations, and I take a few snapshots with their cameras, and I'll start getting to this when I get my own camera. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think you understand what Larry is saying. It might be a good idea to allow regular editors from newly-added parts of this project to realize that "their" articles are now part of a project, and not try to barge in with naming conventions and other changes. --NE200:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that we can create a wikitable for the subway services and subway lines? We have an infobox to sub the hard-code one, should we create a wikitable to sub the hard-code one? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, Larry, the project has an infobox (Infobox NYCS) to replace the hard-code one, shoudn't we have our own project wikitable to replace the hard-code one (probably to be named Wikitable NYCS)? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible, but the template would be ridiculously complex. In the time spent writing and revising the template until it works flawlessly, one could instead finish inserting the tables for all the services—twice. There are only 26 or so articles that need this table, while most templates are used to insert content (usually much smaller than one of our tables) that is repeated over dozens and hundreds of articles. Even after the template was finished, there would have to be hundreds of arguments to specify every piece of information in the table: station names, service icons, accessibility status, transfers, and connections. Tables such as this are generally not made into templates; they're far too complicated and not ubiquitous enough. Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Future G train service change
In the G train article, it said that beginning in 2007, the G line will be extended to Church Avenue. I don't think we should include any future events because they can change without warning, even though right now we have proof. I think we should remove that until it happens. Do you agree or disagree? The Legendary Ranger23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with leaving the notice, but it should be very clear that the change is reported. I disagree with the current wording of the article, which makes it seem as if the change is from an official source. Something like, "According to some reports, the G will be extended" should suffice. Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops... I saw the superscript 5, went down to the references, and clicked on #5. I'm going to fix the reference format. --NE206:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to reduce unnecessary demand on the servers and make the article source easier to read, particularly for new users, please could members of this project substitute the simple linking templates.
For example {{PATH}} produces just PATH. While this is obviously easier to type, there is no need for it to be transcluded, so please can you replace {{PATH}} with {{subst:PATH}} when editing and creating articles. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more details, including a list of bots what might be able to help. Thryduulf02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We already had a problem with a bot with our NYCS templates, and an editor had to go through very long work to revert the bot's edits. We do not want to go through that again. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, this actually seems like a fairly sensible point. I'm not sure the template is doing that much good. The incident with Cyde/Mark Shepherd isn't quite the same. Also, Marc Shepherd chose to revert an extremely difficult way. It's quite easy for an admin to revert edits. alphachimp.17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The articles referenced by these templates aren't likely to be renamed very soon, and even if they were, redirects would keep everything together. On the other hand, the service templates were less intended to reference articles than to display easily-changed information—which can't be handled by redirects. The templates I can think of that can probably be subst-ed are:
Before Alphachimpbot does his thing (and he does it quite well :)), can somebody tell me why the templates have </pre> at the end. It looks like Tinlinkin went in and added them last August...but I have no idea what they do. alphachimp.08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The </pre> is really unnecessary for this project's templates. I must have forgot to remove it when I copied code from another template, in my haste to add templates to the category I created. (It's a good thing the <pre> start tag wasn't added.)
Often, the MTA labels the stations along 110th Street in Manhattan names such as "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street)" and "Central Park North (110th Street)". I object to the use of these forms in our articles because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the parentheses look awkward in the article titles (e.g., "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)"). I feel that the relevant articles should be named and referred to as follows:
It looks like signs, at least on 8th Avenue, only say 110th Street: [1] On the Lenox Avenue Line, I see usage of a dash on signs: [2] It's possible that the Cathedral Parkway ones use dashes on some segns; can anyone who rides those trains verify? --NE206:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the usage of Cathedral Parkway over 110th Street, such as Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) because that is what the crosstown street is known by. 110th Street is secondary, and should therefore not go first. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not it's relevant, but conductors definitely use the form Larry was refering to. I prefer the form he proposed above (possibly for that reason, maybe for other subconscious ones). alphachimp.18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
110th Street is a secondary name, but since street signs also classify 110th Street as a different name where the trains serve the station, the name should follw the same format as the street signs, as well as the map, and the MTA's tables. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I support Larry's plan. Plus using parenthesis is clumsy and his idea accounts for both Cathedral Parkway and 110th Street. As we have told you on countless occasions, the MTA's nomencalture is not our nomenclature. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case we would be using the MTA's nomenclature, at least on Lenox Avenue – can anyone say what the in-station signs say on Broadway-7th and 8th? --NE223:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Broadway–7th station has "110 St–Cathedral Parkway," while the 8th Av station has "110 St" on signage and "110 St–Cathedral Parkway" in mosaics. And for concerns about references: the schedules (warning: PDF!} for the 1 and C show "110 St–Cathedral Pkwy," the B has the variant "Cathedral Pkwy–110 St" (but still without parentheses), and the 2 and 3 have "Central Park North–110 St" (still without parentheses). Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have seen some "110 St-Cathedral Pkwy" signage in the (A)(B)(C) station (not including the mosaics). Also the A has "Cathedral Parkway (110 St)". Coolguy8203:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
While were on the subject, I would like to reopen discussion on complexes and stations with misleading names. There needs to be a new policy on naming stations, something that every user can agree with and not something just copypasted from a state agency, which is for the most part, inconsistent as well. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the MTA doesn't realize their mistakes, and because of this, we'll have to make the decision for them. As for the 110th Street naming, 110th should go last, because as on the street page, it is also commonly known as Cathedral Parkway and Central Park North west of Fifth Avenue, and common means more relatively known as. Bottom line. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. PCH, I fixed the category link you posted above (use a colon to insert category link w/o placing page as part of the category).
Huh? Yeah, it is also commonly known as Cathedral Parkway and Central Park North. That doesn't mean that those are more common than "110th Street." Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Underconstruction tag
I think we should create our own under construction tag in order to prevent other editors from editing our tables while we are expanding or revamping them. Any suggestions on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a very bad idea. Wikipedia should be able to be edited by anyone at any time. With a few exceptions we sincerely try to make that possible. The preview feature is there so that we don't have to tag articles as 'underconstruction'. alphachimp.17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think the best thing to do is just get it all done in one shot. Use lots of cut-and-paste for repeating wiki-code, and try to incorporate parts of the old tables so you don't have to do so much typing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
High: individual heavy rail and light rail lines and services, operating and holding companies, less-major systems, the most major stations (should former major terminals like Exchange Place be here?), some lists like New York City Subway rolling stock
Mid: major transfer stations, individual surface lines
Low: other stations, miscellaneous articles like minor bridges
I don't think I'd include airports, since their importance for intra-region transportation is very little, but ferries are certainly closely related to the other modes, especially historically. Most of the crosstown streetcar lines in lower Manhattan had both terminals at ferries. --NE210:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call air travel "public transportation" anyway. =) I would not include bridges and automobile-related transport. Otherwise, it's a good idea. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bridges that carried rail should be fine though, like all the Manhattan-Brooklyn bridges except the Triborough. There are also rail-only bridges, like the Hell Gate Bridge. --NE220:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but I don't think that we should really have "official" scope over those articles, since their rail aspects are secondary (except for rail-only ones). This certainly doesn't mean that we can't improve them! Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I agree with the method by which you are displaying the importance (i.e., Talk:New York City Subway). It sort of throws off the visual structure of the TrainsWikiProject template box with it's "secondary" colored box… it's hard to explain, easy if you see it. Surely there must be another way to indicate importance without using more colors, such as text saying "This article has _____ importance under WP:NYCPT" or something of that sort. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's a book that covers the history of the Manhattan streetcar lines from construction to abandonment, including details of which company built exactly which trackage?
I think that if the article on the person exists, it makes sense to mention him there. I'm not sure if he himself (or the event) is notable, but if anything I'd guess that if it's borderline it would be merged to the station article. --NE200:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever links to an article does not assert the article's notability, only the subject itself. Since he has appeared on several news and talk outlets, I would think he is notable. What other articles would he be relevant in? Tinlinkin22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BWCNY recently changed the headers on list of bus routes in the Bronx and the other similar pages from "from"/"to" to "terminal A"/"terminal B". I reverted, since to me "terminal A" implies some sort of official designation by the MTA of that terminal as "A". However, the "from"/"to" could be misleading, implying it is a one-way trip. What do you think? --NE204:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Terminal A" implies that the terminal is designated "A" by the MTA. How about a double-width column saying just "Terminals"? --NE205:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This templateTemplate:NYC simplebus has been used to link to bus routes, but on the depot page; I've been moving the lists to borough pages. Should we make a new template to link by borough and phase this one out? Should we make redirects from M1 (New York City bus) or a similar form to the borough lists, or the former streetcar line where applicable? (A problem arises when a bus route was multiple lines.) --NE206:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not too keen on the borough by borough lists, if only for the reason that they seem to be purely listcruft. I'm not sure what other way we could make such a transition without destroying my hard work from over the summer (trust me, the bus line templates were horrible to do). Why do you want to make lists by borough instead of depot? alphachimp07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the lists? They have not only the terminals and general route but the history, including what streetcar line it replaced, if any (I haven't done this for the Bronx yet). The ones listed by depot are more "listcrufty", including operating times, which routes use articulated buses, etc. I would also think that bus routes can be shifted to other depots relatively easily. There's some old discussion on Talk:MTA New York City Transit buses too. --NE209:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BWCNY disagrees with my removal of details like service times when moving the lists from the depot pages, and says that he "will edit back unless you give me good answer." I explained that we don't normally list information like this because it can be easily changed, and is better looked up on the MTA's site, and I don't think it improves the article at all. Wikipedia is also not biased towards the present; if we included the operating times; we'd also include all the changes that have been made in the past to these times, adding even more "cruft". --NE207:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I like the idea of creating redirects – that way we totally automate it with a simple change of NYC simplebus once all the redirects are made. Any comments? --NE223:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, no. The MTA publicly brands it as "New York City Bus". And to quote " Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The MTA may brand some of them as "New York City Bus", but not the ones operated by the MTA Bus Company. But if we were going by the branding/company, we'd use "New York City Transit" or something similar. --NE205:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the deal, NE2: I put in a fairly large amount of work this summer adding bus lines with AWB. It took many hours to correlate individual bus lines, train stops, and depots...many hours that I'll never get back. You're welcome to change them to be on whatever you want, but realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work. I would encourage you to link the templates properly, but realize that any work in doing that is going to have to be entirely your own. alphachimp07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I really *hope* that the above was a massive overreaction, and that you'll prove me entirely wrong. alphachimp07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Under the edit window, it says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The same would presumably apply to other work. I do thank you for doing the tedious work, but listing by borough seems to be a lot better for the readers who are looking for the history of a route.
By the way, do you mind commenting on the above issue of whether operating times should be listed? Thank you. --NE208:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And it seems entirely wrong for anyone interested in bus routes on the basis of their depots. Thanks for quoting the edit window. I had totally forgotten the text that appeared the last 20,000 times I clicked "save page". I guess somewhat of a reminder was in order. Thank you. --alphachimp08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down; no one is saying your work was bad. And someone wishing to see bus routes by depot can still see which buses operate out of it with a link to the borough list, where most people will be looking. See also Talk:New York City Transit buses. --NE208:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not make assumptions about my level of "calm". I'd strongly recommend that you read WP:AGF. As for that discussion, you revived a months old dialogue between several editors that are not a part of this project any more. alphachimp08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when is not being calm acting in bad faith? You're obviously being a bit hostile here, though your intent seems good. --NE208:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm really missing the part where you suggesting that I read the bottom of the edit window is not overtly hostile. Perhaps you could inform me? alphachimp08:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You implicitly recommended that we consider going back to listing by depot because it would be "destroying all of my hard work". I pointed out that your work is subject to said "destruction" any time you submit an edit. --NE208:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Implicitly recommended"? Again, you're jumping to tons and tons of conclusions about the meaning of my comments. Scroll up and reread. Thus far, you've accused me of being "hostile", warned me to "please calm down" and suggested that I read the bottom of the edit window. alphachimp09:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You told me to "realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work". I don't see how that can be interpreted otherwise; you wanted me to think carefully and include that fact in the decision, possibly tipping the scale towards going back to sorting by depot.
Anyway, why are we meta-arguing about this rather than discussing which way is better for the readers and editors? --NE209:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also hard to have such a discussion when you've been told that "you are simply destroying all of my hard work". I would like to have such a discussion though; can we stop this pointless argument? --NE209:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how that's an apt description for removing someone's work and then demanding they "calm down", but perhaps that works for you. It's absurd to discuss anything with such accusations in the air. alphachimp09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Then don't discuss it, but don't complain when you don't like the outcome. I'm going to remove this whole thread soon as not relevant. --NE209:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeking to achieve a return to working on the encyclopedia rather than arguing back and forth with one-liners. --NE210:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I usually subscribe to that famous maxim ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") wholeheartedly, but in this case I am completely supportive of Alphachimp's reluctance to rework the bus structures. Frankly, he has been extremely modest when referring to the amount of effort he put into the bus templates (and related articles) over this past summer. "A fairly large amount of work" does not even begin to come close to describing the unholy amount of sheer bruntwork and mind-numbingly repetitive editing he did. No offense to you, NE2, but I'm not sure that anyone who was not part of WP:NYCS over the summer can fully comprehend the incredible magnitude of the contributions Alphachimp made; day after day, week after week, month after month, his name dominated my watchlist. If that had been me, I'd be a little more than hesitant about a complete overhaul. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing directly, I'm just saying that I'm understanding of why Alphachimp is reluctant to change it. I'm not endorsing one way or the other. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For myself, in a mention of a bus route, I would first think about the bus routes in an entire borough. But links to the depot better reflect regional purposes. So either way is fine with me, though I am leaning toward the latter. It is painful to change a status quo, especially with one user's contributions, so the reason to change it must be compelling. I'd also like to know how other major transportation systems link their bus routes. Tinlinkin11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Alphachimp, an experienced sysop, has done some great work on that bus template. However, it would be more sensible to organize the bus services into boroughs because not many people would think about buses in a list by depots. Besides, it would save more time by referring to one map by listing by borough than referring to more than one map by listing by depot. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be re-name to MTA New York City Transit Bus, it should not be confused with different bus operators in New York City. BWCNY01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The MTA combines NYCTA buses and MaBSTOA buses, but separates MTA Bus. I'm not sure if we should do this, but right now that's how the article is. If we expand the scope, we should probably still only cover MTA buses, since the private operators don't have the same behind-the-scenes details that the article should cover (funding etc). --NE202:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This article needs references more than anything, right now. You can clean it up all you want, but the whole thing looks like a large amount of original research. I'd advise finding some sources before doing any article editing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Colors for bus text
Since we don't use colors for subway services, which are colored in real life, we shouldn't use colors for buses (Special:PermanentLink/98989673#Local and limited-stop), which are only colored on the map. Does anyone oppose this, or should it be added to the WikiProject page under a "standards" section? --NE202:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
While I'm sure there is a policy on this, it also goes towards personal prefrences. Many Hong Kong metro (I don't know the real system name) articles have colored text on the line names. As well as countless others. My say on this is policy wise, I'll od what it says. Personally wise, I want colored text. It all depends. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind, but Larry was opposed to it and removed it from the navbox last month. I strongly think they should be on the navbox page. Any more thoughts? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily, I find nothing wrong with looking to other projects for precedent, but in this case… the Hong Kong pages are wrong. Just wrong. I could not care less about whether you show bus names in color or not, but any links should not be colored. From my previous objection:
Using colors for links is generally tacky and unsightly. But even discounting personal opinions, it messes with people's preconceived notions of links. For the vast majority of people, links are blue. Period. You see blue text among a sea of black, it's a hyperlink. With the colors, that's not so readily apparent. Sure, one could just mouse over the letters and see for oneself—but that shouldn't be necessary. Differently-colored links, unless all links are the same color, smacks of bad web design and poor usability.
It's not listed on the MTA bus site, because it is not a MTA operation. It is run by Private Transportation (the actual name of the company) and is used mostly by the jewish community, although it is open to all. I think the same company also runs the CitySights buses. You can search (or ask) someone on SubChat's BusChat board. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, the B110 sometimes uses local streets between Borough Park and Williamsburg, to avoid BQE traffic. They use Vanderbilt and Park Avenues (<rant>I should know, they pass me everyday while I wait for the B69, which never comes and...</rant>)
I lived at the B110 bus stop, once. (Arril 1999 till NOvember 2000)I guess it is numbered so, because it share 49th/50th streets as well as many stops with B11. So I guess it renotes a version of B11 with a 0 extension. HOwever, it is entirely different form B11.
Its a route from boro park to williamsburgh and back from williamsburgh to boro park
jewish people use it mostly and it is a jewish company and boro park and williamsburgh are jewish neighborhoods
I no longer think it is suitable to classify stations that have the New York City Subway prefix as complexes due to naming issues. I believe that we should now classify stations as either transfer-points or shared. See below:
Stations that have transfer availability should be called transfer-points, as long as the transfer whollies within fare control via a passageway (stations like 168th Street, Times Square, and Grand Central)
Stations that have across-the-platform or level-to-level transfers should be called shared subway stations (stations like Seventh Avenue, Manhattan, Queensboro Plaza, and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, 50th Street, Manhattan, and Jamaica Center)
A category that points out transfer stations seems to be overcategorization to me. And why introduce a foreign-sounding terminology? Tinlinkin22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Bus links, again
I've made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects of how the bus links could redirect to the line articles; there are only two with streetcar origins that don't have a clear target (and with the B23, those two short lines were once planned to connect, so they could logically be covered in one article). The new bus routes from B1 to B20 (and B31, formerly a branch of the B3, and B82, once the B5) were all introduced early by the BMT, and could easily be in one combined article detailing the BMT's early bus routes. That leaves only the B77, B83, B100, B103, and B110, which could redirect to the master list. --NE200:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bus structure, again
Please correct me if I have it wrong, but as far as I can tell this is the real-world structure of the NYC-area bus system:
Suffolk Transit (non-MTA) operates buses mainly in Suffolk County.
Private companies operate some buses in Queens and Long Island, some of these MTA-subsidized.
To the public, the only difference between the NYCTA/MaBSTOA, MTA Bus, and MSBA buses is the text on the side. Otherwise they are basically the same. The subsidized private routes are also very similar, being included on maps, but have some differences. (Do they take MetroCards?) And the few unsubsidized buses are very different. Every bus route, public, subsidized, or unsubsidized, is numbered in the same fashion.
Now, assuming that the above is true, here are my suggestions:
One article, possibly named Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses (New York), covers the details of all the public buses, which to the public look very similar, and also some general information on the private routes.
The articles on the individual authorities – NYCTA, MaBSTOA, MTA Bus, and MSBA, only cover the "behind-the-scenes" information like funding and organizational history.
The articles on the private operators cover their history and other details.
The lists of buses by borough cover all buses with that prefix, whether public or private. It's not clear where express and multi-borough buses should go, but this is a minor concern.
What would be too large of a page? I assume you mean the one covering details of buses; I'm not proposing to include lists or anything in there, just commonalities like funding, fares, and numbering: in other words, an expansion of New York City Transit buses to include MTA Bus and MTA Long Island Bus. And how is NYCTA not an MTA agency? It's branded "MTA New York City Transit", and its operations are all branded "MTA something". --NE219:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is why it is not an MTA agency, per se. They are three different agencies, although they provide the same service, they are three different providers in the legal sense and in some cases the popular sense. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
According to that article, it is an MTA agency:
"As part of a public image campaign, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has assigned "PR" names to each of its affiliates and subsidiaries. These popular names differ from the legal names, which are used in all contracting and legal matters, and are used on public notices, maps, publications, vehicles and stations. The PR name of the New York City Transit Authority is MTA New York City Transit."
My question still stands: does the public see a big difference between the NYCTA, MTA Bus, and MTA Long Island Bus operations? You're arguing about fine points of the corporate structure that may or may not be important. To clarify, would someone transferring from a N* (LI Bus) to a Q* (MTA Bus) to a B* (NYCTA) notice any difference beyond the livery? --NE202:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the thing. The public probably notices slight differences at the least. While you may see them as one big happy family, they are still legally seperate entities, reguardless of the branding, logo and other decorations. You notice that while Apple Inc makes desktops and Powerbooks with a white style, they don't have share the same article. They might do the same thing, but they are different products, with different branding in the public mind and in the mind of the U.S. patent office. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be the same article; I'm saying there should be one article that describes the common details of all the bus operations, and then separate articles about the operating authorities with "behind the scenes" details. --NE204:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, how do you think it should be organized? Here's my impression of what you want:
No one said no, PCH. I made a presentation, but a few people were misled. Only two people made a post, but thy were misled. I was trying to prove my point by creating the cats so peolewould undersand what I was trying to say. However, if I caused any discrepancy, I'm sorry. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I can say for myself and Larry V that we were not "misled." We both could see that you want a category for subway stations that allow transfers between multiple lines. We couldn't see the point of creating a subcategory of these stations. (That means we said "no.") I said (in some other words) that your original categories as proposed above would be esoteric, meaning understood or designed for someone within a limited circle of users. Each station article mentions how connections are available; why should a category with a narrow intersection and/or overlapping amongst the same entity be created? Tinlinkin23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article has been speedied, so the cfd has closed. But I will say what I have to say anyway:
To NE2: I do not think that tht was a good-faith nomination, IMO. You could have commented here first, and see what others had to say, instead of listing the CFD just like that.
To PCH: I was not going against consensus, if that is what you believed, I was simply trying to make a point to other people so they could undertand me better. Besides, you never posted a comment to begin with.
To Tinlinkin: If you wre going to say no, you could have just said so, or fully state why you diagreed.
To Larry: Because you didn't understand me, I thought I would show you what I was trying to say, because I alreay explained what I had in mind, I couldn't get clearer.
Per what I said, I apologize for any possible discrepancy I may have caused. But why would the category be esoteric? Why can't we have categories that show different types of complexes for the system? Subway stations, like Broadway Junction, shouldn't be in Category:New York City Subway stations. Why can't we have different categories to see what types of different station complexes? I'm a bit confused.... --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with having a category for different types of stations. I don't know what a list can offer instead a category, IMO. Then again, I don't object to it...it might be better that way.... --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
One reason I disagree using a regular list instead of the category: we have to update the list evey time a new complex is merged. With the cat, there is no need to do that. Just add the cat to a page,and that's it. Are you guys sure we should do this with a list? If you guys ant to, I wouldn't object. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We would only have to do it when the MTA builds a new connection, which is presumably rare. --NE220:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. They are ceating two as we speak: South Ferry and Fulton Street.
So when they finish we edit the list to say so. We'd have to add the page to the category anyway. --NE221:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said that I didn't understand what you were suggesting, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. What I didn't understand was the purpose of the categorization. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I was going to oppose the categorization anyway, since I felt it was unnecessary. I just wanted you to lay out what you wanted to do and what your intended purpose was. On that note, you never answered my question and dictated the point of the category. By extension, is this list really necessary or useful at all? I can easily imagine this list being placed on WP:AFD and being deleted as cruft. What will be the real usefulness of the article? And no, making the list for the purpose of having a list is not legitimate. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what should we do then? There are different types of stations that are connected, and they deserve having some sort of list. What should we do? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Some users believe the name should be Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). I for one think that the name should be Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) because it is a shared station, and to disambig it from the Brooklyn station, we should use otheruses4 template. What should be done here? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If we don't go with (IND Queens Boulevard Line) because it's on two lines, that doesn't mean we should go with (New York City Subway). We could somehow add Manhattan to the disambiguation – Seventh Avenue (Manhattan New York City Subway station)? --NE201:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's only one line alone, the Queens Boulevard Line. How could it be on the Sixth Avenue Line when that continues north to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue? There's no need for a disambig.Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to IND Sixth Avenue Line, the Sixth Avenue Line, or at least a branch of it, runs through the station. If the connection used by the B and D through the station isn't the Sixth Avenue Line, what is it? [5] doesn't show any track connections to the Queens Boulevard Line. --NE201:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
NE2, Seventh Avenue (Manhattan New York City Subway station) would be a little long. Besides, we don't include "station" anymore. And addinng the borough, I don't know. But right now, I'm neutral. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's where checking out the talk archives would help in understanding. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, someone suggested using "New York City Subway" in article names. This idea was rejected because there are often multiple stations with the same name; other alternatives such as using divisions alone ("IND", "BMT", "IND") were rejected as being too vague. Here was born the custom of using line names. Later on, someone else came up with the idea of merging certain stations into single articles for complexes. Since no station articles used "New York City Subway" at this point, it was convenient to use that phrase in for these new station complex article names.
The point of this history lesson? Only this: The number one consideration should be to keep station article names clearly distinct from one another. Yes, "New York City Subway" should generally be used for stations with two or more lines. However, this guideline should always be superseded by the need for distinction in article names. If there were only one Seventh Avenue station, then sure, "Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway)" would be just fine; in fact, I wouldn't accept anything else. However, this is not the case; therefore, "New York City Subway" should not even be considered.
In addition, using Template:Otheruses4 should never be used in lieu of clear article names. Look at well-disambiguated sets of pages. Each has article names that are distinct by themselves, with parenthesized phrases to make the differentiation; the dab links serve only to remove any doubt. If one article does not differentiate its title, it is because it is almost always the intended subject for the phrase that makes up the title. Neither Seventh Avenue station is "well-known-enough" to claim a "top" spot here.
Now, some might say that "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)" is unclear, since it doesn't say anything about the Sixth Avenue Line. I agree, it's a little off, yes. However, the article makes it quite clear that both lines serve the station; more importantly, the two Seventh Avenue stations are made quite distinct. "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line)" is somewhat awkward; it suggests that it is on a line called the "Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line" (sort of like the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). Using one line in the name is the usual thing; so, which line would be best? Well, emergency exit signs at Seventh/53rd say "Queens Line", so we might as well use that one. The main idea is that we use one line.
I think we should have a list in a subpage of this project documenting what the exit signs say on the various lines. --NE203:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
NE2: West 4th upper level says 8 Av, lower level says 6 Av. Jay Street says 8 Av I believe, but it serves both the IND Sixth Avenue Line and IND Eighth Avenue Line. The important thing is, there is only one West 4 St station and one Jay St station, so there's no problem.
Imdanumber1: The IND's original idea was to designate one huge line through Manhattan and Brooklyn, including the modern 8 Av Line and the Fulton St subway, as simply the "Eighth Avenue Subway". This is the same idea that it had for 6 Av/Culver, and that the BMT had for Broadway/4 Av. However, the Fulton Street Line was built and opened after the 8 Av Line, so we'll consider it separate. The MTA also considers it separate in newer literature, I believe.
All: Let's not get too crazy here. I don't mean to make emergency exit signs a source or a topic of interest. I'm just using it in the Seventh Avenue case as a sort of "tiebreaker" to decide on a line designation. I can currently think of just one other case in which this applies: the two DeKalb Avenue stations. One is clearly on the BMT Canarsie Line. The other is not clear at all; I labeled it as BMT Broadway Line because of the exit signs.
Yes, the MTA definitely uses "Fulton Street Line" in Brooklyn. We should probably do a better job of referencing the line names. --NE203:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, "a better job"? As far as I know, articles for stations under Fulton Street are titled "IND Fulton Street Line", not "IND Eighth Avenue Line". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It sure feels like a long long time ago… damn, I've been in this project for a long time :P … and NE2, I'm pretty sure that nearly all articles reference their lines adequately, in both the infobox and the opening paragraph. Could you provide an example of an article which does this poorly? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and these two articles are referenced at the bottom of almost every station article. I can probably add some references from this book, which is an excellent resource. In addition, the book itself lists its references, which we can look into. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they are not newspapers or official literature does not make them unreliable. There are many books out there that have information; however, I don't have the time to read them all. (I can't speak for anyone else.) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And check the sites out before you make judgments. nycsubway.org has many articles from newspapers and other sources of that ilk; in addition, it's excellent original articles have scores of references which can be checked. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You should probably read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Where are the sources they cite on the line pages linked from [6]? We should also ideally use the sources they cite, when they do cite them, and "bypass the middleman". When I get a chance I'll start referencing the line names from MTA publications. --NE204:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with that. There are very few MTA references that establish anything definitive about lines. And if you'll note, the page you referenced doesn't actually say that the Crosstown Line extends to Church Avenue; it merely says that their descriptions will start at Church. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking about talk page guidelines: I've noticed that discussions tend to drift off-topic here. For instance, this section started as a discussion on the name of Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line); now we're talking about sourcing and stuff. If you want to go off on a tangent (not on a whim, but for the purposes of improving the project), please start a new section. On another note, let's try to always answer at the end of the section (not necessarily under the post you're replying to), so that posts stay in chronological order. To keep threads of conversation straight, use indenting liberally. This, together with efficient use of sections, should make our threads much clearer to read and understand. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, back to sources. Well, I've got some suggestions. The nycsubway.org and Station Reporter sites are probably the best sorces for our info (check every page, most of it has these two sites as sources). The MTA works, too, because they have address and accessibility info too, but let's not get too specific. So anyway, what our main problem is original research. See information for the 5 service? They say some trains go to Gun Hill Road and run express. Some people may have seen this, but not everyone lives in New York, so we have to make sure this stays correct. And let's not forget those darn Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes, where vandals were getting misunderstood information from SubChat, formerly SubTalk, and created chaos all over the namespace. The bottom line is: Not everyone lives in New York, so they don't know as much as we do, but with a little help from online, everything will be a-okay. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue
In "Section V"(PDF). ("MTA Capital Program Information") of the MTA-Wide February Financial Plan for 2004–2007, there are references to both "74 St–Roosevelt Av" and "Roosevelt Av–74 St". So there's a reference for a combined name for the complex. I'd prefer "Roosevelt Avenue–74th Street", because the "Roosevelt Avenue" name is somewhat more important than "74th Street" (for instance, station signs to the complex usually say "Roosevelt Avenue Subway Station"). Larry V (talk | e-mail) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
…and others like it are not being used, and I think we came to a conclusion earlier that they don't fit into the project very well. So can I go ahead and delete them? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I created List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City to place all the bus routes prefixed with "x" and with multiple boroughs on one page. Seems pretty simple, right? But the QBx1 is a local multi-borough bus; that's why I named the article "express and multi-borough bus routes". BWCNY and Sta2GUYZ don't seem to understand that; the former removed the QBx1 from the list and added it back to both the Queens and Bronx lists, and the latter made a copy-paste move to List of NYCTA, MaBSTOA, and MTA Bus express bus routes in New York City (which is a horrible name, especially since the list includes two subsidized routes not operated by the MTA). I'll probably have to stop soon because of the three-revert rule; I'd appreciate some help. (Do reverts of a copy-paste move count towards the 3RR?) --NE204:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not bring this up on to this page because it is your personal issues on me. Please stop accusing or bringing up this issue with me and that I don't know who he is nor I met him and BTW he is a new guy to Wikipedia. Unless I will call the admin to respond to you that you are making a personal attack on me at that comment. That's why some of the users are questioning your contribution to Wikipedia. Please remove your post above or anything else on the comments directed to me because it does not belong on this page. You better deal with me until I choose to stop contributed on this site. 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I'd suggest that we do not bring up issues like that here. Besides, everyone has been going well contributing to the project. I'd suggest that we bring it up to the right place, such as WP:AIV or WP:AN/I or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. But let's try to work together instead of bringing others down.
I would like to thank you to Larry V and Imdanumber1 for your supported comments on to this matter. One last/final comment to get this straight it out. I don't care if he accuse, judge or attack me of his suspicion of sockpuppets, which I'm NOT (for the final time) and he does not have concrete proof about it. This issue is over and again he should not brought his comments on me over here in the first place. BWCNY06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here have access to the full text in the New York Times archive (through your school or something)? --NE218:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I'm looking for the list of lines from either [8] or [9] and one of [10], [11] or [12] (which appear to have lists of Fifth Avenue Coach Company bus routes). Thank you muchly. --NE203:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is in response to your recent e-mail message to MTA New York City Transit requesting information about the subway system.
We appreciate and encourage interest in the history and evolution of NYC Transit's subway system. In response to your inquiry, the B and D lines are still considered the Sixth Avenue Line following the 47th-50th Streest/Rockefeller Center station.
Well… no one said it didn't, except Pacific Coast Highway. It clearly runs separately from the IND Queens Boulevard Line under 53rd Street. After 47–50th Streets, tracks B3 and B4 continue under 53rd Street, while B5 and B6 continue under Sixth Avenue. The article issue is simply a nomenclature problem. Your response seemes a little clearer than mine:
Q
I was wondering if someone who knows about the subway's physical nomenclature could help me out. Chaining seems to indicate that the IRT Eastern Parkway Line extends from Borough Hall to New Lots Avenue; is this in fact what the MTA considers it to be?
A
We appreciate your interest in our transit system. In answer to your inquiry, please be advised that the No. 3 and 4 lines of the IRT line currently operate between the Borough Hall station and the New Lots Avenue station.
Try asking the question more clearly... such as "what is the name of the line that the 4 and 5 use under the East River?" Maybe throw in a historical reference, like "I know it was built as an extension of what is now the Lexington Avenue Line to Atlantic Avenue, but the line at Atlantic Avenue is now the Eastern Parkway Line; does the Eastern Parkway Line extend into Manhattan?" Here's the question I had success with:
After passing through 47th-50th Streets, the Sixth Avenue Line splits into three routes. The V turns east onto the Queens Boulevard Line, and the F continues north and becomes the 63rd Street Line. What is the name of the line that the B and D use to the west, next to the Queens Boulevard Line, to get to the Eighth Avenue Line at 59th Street? Is this part of the Sixth Avenue Line, or does it have another name?
What is the name of the line used by the 4 and 5 trains to traverse the East River? I know that in Brooklyn, they are on the Eastern Parkway Line; does this line extend into Manhattan via the Joralemon Street tube?
A
We truly appreciate your interest in New York City Transit. Trip Planner is a new web-based service from MTA New York City Transit that gives you directions about how to get from one place to another using New York’s subways and buses. Visit the Trip Planner pages here—[13]. A variety of information and options are available to you depending on your travel needs and preferences. From train and bus schedules to step-by-step instructions that bring you from your starting point to your destination, Trip Planner also provides service alerts and advisories to give you the ability to plan ahead so you’ll know exactly what to do before you head out.
This is interesting: [14] – in 1981 the MTA had Clark Street on the New Lots Line. The Second Avenue Subway SDEIS only clearly shows the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line going up to the Clark Street Tunnel, so maybe the Eastern Parkway Line splits in two and ends at both tunnels. --NE201:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Eastern Parkway definitely does not run up through both tunnels. What part of the SDEIS are you referring to? (Link, please.)
I know that I don't have explicit sources (argh!), but the mish-mash of nomenclature suggests that the MTA doesn't know or care where Eastern Parkway begins or ends, as long as they know where to start maintenance work (which is given in reference to stations and river tunnels). Thus, it is useless to look for sources for "official" names, because there aren't any. This is proven by the complete lack of any sort of regular name for the stretch of IND subway between Bergen Street and Church Avenue, which is variously called the South Brooklyn Line, the Smith Street Line, the Jay–Smith Streets Line, and the IND Culver Line. (See here for some insight.) I think the best way to do this is by the track chaining information, which says that Eastern Parkway runs from Borough Hall out to New Lots as IRT chaining E. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My reference to the SDEIS was because I reference it on IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line for the Brooklyn Branch's extent – but the SDEIS says nothing about the Brooklyn side. On the other hand, the MTA referred to the Clark Street station as part of the New Lots Line in 1981 (the New Lots Line west of Utica Avenue is now the Eastern Parkway Line), and we have a reference for the Eastern Parkway Line going to the Joralemon Street Tunnel.
I think choosing one name semi-arbitrarily and presenting it as the name would be original research; we should simply say that there is no clear name between Borough Hall and the East River. I think it makes sense then to define the scope of the Eastern Parkway/New Lots article to cover both branches to the river, making the borough line the division (like nycsubway.org refers to the "Brooklyn IRT").
I'm not going arbitrarily here, I was taking the chaining info from Peter Dougherty's Tracks of the New York City Subway, which includes lines:
"Line E, Eastern Parkway, Borough Hall to New Lots Ave"
"Line K, Clark St. Tunnel, Chambers Street to Borough Hall"
"Line M, Manhattan–Brooklyn, Brooklyn Bridge to Borough Hall"
Clark Street and Borough Hall (2 and 3) say "IRT BROADWAY–7TH AVENUE LINE"; Borough Hall (4 and 5) says "IRT LEXINGTON AVENUE LINE". I'm not sure about Hoyt Street, but I believe Nevins says "IRT EASTERN PARKWAY LINE", as does Atlantic Avenue. From this and the chaining information, I gather that Broadway–7th Avenue runs through Clark Street and Lexington through Joralemon Street, both to Borough Hall. When the lines merge, they take on new chaining letters and become Eastern Parkway.
I recognize the need for sources, but that doesn't mean we should use confused sources (which, let's face it, are what MTA documents are with regards to lines) to include misinformation. Joralemon as Eastern Parkway? Maybe. Clark Street? No way; defining that as Eastern Parkway would be original research based on absence of information. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I believe the exit signs would be considered verifiable, at least if we have photos (since who knows, they may decide to get rid of them all next year). That of course is just another "possible name" (see Eighth along Fulton), though it's definitely the clearest. I'm thinking of something like:
The west end of the Eastern Parkway Line is near the East River, but its exact location is unclear. In a 1981 list of "most deteriorated subway stations", the MTA listed Borough Hall and Court Street stations as part of the New Lots Line. However, as of 2007, emergency exit signs label Court Street as a Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line station, and the two parts of Borough Hall are signed as being along the Broadway-Seventh Avenue and Lexington Avenue Line. [Also mention chaining here.]
By the way, can you think of any cases in other fields we could consult – where something needs to be chosen for list purposes, but there is no well-defined choice? --NE221:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing comes to mind immediately, but I'll bring it up if I come upon one. And the exit signs are emergency exit signs displaying the location of the nearest tunnel exit to the surface, so I doubt that they'll be removed in the near future :)
Because of the MTA's refusal to define its lines, I think we really have to come up with our own system based not only on sourced references but also historical information and plain old common sense. Fulton Street should be its own line because it was constructed after the first 8th Avenue trunk line. Eastern Parkway historically is the line between Atlantic Avenue and New Lots Avenue. But then what of the combined line between Hoyt and Atlantic? Emergency exit signs say that the Borough Hall stations belong to Broadway–7th Avenue and Lexington Avenue. Common sense then suggests that Broadway–7th Avenue and Lexington run through Borough Hall and merge to become Eastern Parkway between Borough Hall and Hoyt Street. Verifiable chaining information also supports this assessment. So Clark Street remains 7th Avenue, Borough Hall is 7th Ave and Lex, Hoyt through New Lots is Eastern Parkway; we mention the ambiguity in the appropriate line and tunnel articles. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the exit signs and to a lesser extent the chaining, I agree with using the "junction" (probably not technically a junction because of no connecting tracks) east of Borough Hall as the end of all three lines for purposes where we must pick one.
However, I'm not convinced that the Eastern Parkway Line ever went east of Utica Avenue. As initially planned, it was the "Flatbush Avenue and Eastern Parkway Line" west of Utica and the "Livonia Avenue Line" east of Utica: [15] Later the MTA used "New Lots Line" for the whole thing, and they still use that east of Utica. --NE222:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would not object to having Eastern Parkway run until the Portal Street portal, with the New Lots Line running east of there to New Lots Avenue. This is similar to the IND/BMT Culver situation (also although less distinct historically). Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty good for the most part, but I think using phrasing like "stretching from Lower Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn east to Crown Heights" is sort of unwieldy. I would say that the Lex and Broadway–7th Avenue stretch down to Lower Manhattan and Eastern Parkway to Brooklyn Heights, then address the ambiguity of the river crossings. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on whether we should duplicate the entries for routes that enter more than one borough on multiple tables. --NE223:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that any bus route that runs in a certain borough should be included in that borough's list, regardless of it's letter designation. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
They are all in the lists, and the lists provide details for the ones with that borough's prefix. Are you willing to watch these articles and copy over all changes people make to listings of multi-borough routes? --NE203:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
LIRR
I just got Steel Rails to the Sunrise through interlibrary loan, and it's due back on February 1. So I'm going to be working on improving Long Island Rail Road, hopefully to featured status, this coming week-and-a-half. --NE217:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't link to anything, and all links have been carried over to {{NYCS service}}. Besides, {{NYCS service}} has made all the other service templates redundant, and no longer needed. {{NYCS service}} is a universal template that is also designed to replace {{NYCS time}}. If possible, I hope that we can finalize the template cleanup process before mid-February. The cat template page needs work anyway. So I'll do a TfD for {{NYCS 1}} and see how that goes. If that works, then I'll have the other service templates deleted, too. If possible, I'll also create a new template, called {{NYCS unused}} to link to Unused New York City Subway service labels. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent expansion of various bus affairs, I would like to put foward one suggestion: adding notes about service hours. Or at the least, noting which routes have overnight service. If we can go into having notes about history and routings, surely we can include service hours. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pacific Coast Highway, it's a useful source of information to improve the articles. Not all bus routes runs 24 hours/7 days a week (and if you wanna add frequently of service in the articles), it should be detailed Hours of Operation or simply stated in general statement like "No Sunday service" in the Note section.BWCNY04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The detailed service hours I've seen in some lists ("5:35 AM – 11:54 PM") are just not useful or encyclopedic. More general comments such as "weekday only" should be fine, as well as which routes run 24 hours or not (which is more frequent?) --NE201:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree because most public transportation articles in Wikipedia detailed/listed hours of operation. I don't think is not useful info but it's additional notation to the route's service hours.BWCNY04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we include bus connections at rail stations if the literature published by either the rail company or the bus company shows a connection. This eliminates original research "oh, you can walk four blocks to this bus, but five blocks is too much" while inculding any transfers deemed useful by either company. Yea or nay? --NE208:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion. I would prefer to go with published literature: routes are listed and delineated, although some bus route connections can be confirmed with a map. The Q60, for example, can connect to the Forest Hills LIRR station, but I guess the LIRR doesn't list that because the Q60 runs parallel to the rail line. The LIRR does say the 71st-Continental subway station is a connection to the LIRR station, even though it is also a block away and parallel. A concern I would raise is if bus (or other) connections should always be in a separate section in each article. Tinlinkin09:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should use our judgment on what looks best: if it's just one route, we can easily use a phrase "the CruftBus #7 stops outside the station", while if there are a number of connections if should be fine to use a bulleted list and maybe a section. --NE209:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is an issue with how the MTA lists connections of that nature. If a bus runs parallel to a subway line, for instance, they will usually list only the "end points". Perfect example: The Q32 runs underneath the IRT Flushing Line for a good portion of its route. The first connection point after it crosses the Queensboro Bridge is at Queensboro Plaza station, and the last connection point before it turns north off of Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights is 82nd Street–Jackson Heights station; however, it does make connections at every Flushing Line station in between. Note that the 7's line map only lists the Q32 at those two "end" stations. This holds true for subway/bus connections, usually; I'm not sure about the commuter rail side. So (for subway/bus at least) what we should do is only list connections that are published, with the exception of parallel routes (which are usually not mentioned), which can be included for each station along the shared route. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How do we know though that the parallel route makes a "convenient" stop? Maybe you have to walk several blocks along the route to reach the next stop. And how close to parallel is "close enough"? Does the bus route have to be on the same street? Can it be half a block away? A full block away? There's also an issue with "reciprocal" links on pages like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn – in theory, all the links should be two-way, but I don't think it's a good idea to list 10 IND Eighth Avenue Line stations on the M10 entry (which would be at Eighth Avenue Line). Though I guess you could just say "it parallels the IND Eighth Avenue Line between 42nd Street and 116th Street, stopping at every station[citation needed]" – and you'd need a reference for that. --NE209:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said on NE2's talk page, we have links for the IRT. BMT, IND, LIRR, and MNRR. None to link to New York City Subway. Besides, it only takes two seconds to type service after NYCS. What's the big deal? --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, most of these use the acronyms. I'm nominating the ones that don't for deletion. --NE201:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "New York City Subway" is probably less used throughout the project than service letters. Why even bother with the redirect? I'd move the Template:NYCS service to Template:NYCS and do it directly. Unfortunately, there's a lot of history stuff to be resolved, but that can be worked through. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've commented on the discussion page, I find these templates useful to reduce typing, but only when substituting them. They don't serve a purpose otherwise. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Bottom line, I suggest that we have the nominations closed/withdrawn, for reasons already given by me and Larry. And NE2, please don't make unilateral Xfds, as you previously did with the test category page, and what you are doing now with the subway templates. The point of discussions at WP:NYCPT is to make consensus here before anywhere else. Sure, we may not own the templates, 'cause we don't own anything. But as their maintainers, we are all responsible for keeping them vandal-free. And it starts here. For the record, I'm not calling you a vandal, NE2 , but we should always try to gain consensus, and it starts here. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In principle, I agree that there should have been discussion here before a request was submitted at WP:TFD. But I think you're misunderstanding my position here. I'm saying that I personally find the templates useful, but they serve no real purpose otherwise. I'm not sure that templates are intended to serve as text placeholders. If I had to pick a side outright, I'd say "delete". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Imdanumber1, you cannot close the debate yourself. I see no admission by the nominator, NE2, that his nomination was mistaken. There was not a clear concensus, and the debate was barely open for a day. I'm reopening the debate. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'm concerned is why NE2 keeps nominating stuff for deletion. He did this with the transfer-point category while I was trying to prove something to you. But as I said, give a day to let other people give feedback. But I, myself, at least try to let people know about it first. Take my proposal for the line-switch template. As it was getting no success, I had it deleted. I could have speedied it if necessary. The point is, we shouldn't always have something deleted unless discussons can back up that the article or template or category isn't getting nowhere. Bottom line, we should keep the templates, and remember to sub them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, that isn't the best solution, either. I feel that the mere existence of the templates promotes the overlinking of their subjects. In other words, they make it easy to insert links, and thus editors are inclined to add too many of them. If we had to type out [[Independent Subway System|IND]] every time we wanted to add a link to that article, we might reconsider doing so, thus making us less prone to saturate articles with links.
Imdanumber1 is right about the XfD's, though. NE2, you really should introduce your concerns here before bringing them to a broader audience.
Well, I want to wait and see what they do with the templates. If they delete them, then it's a straightforward move. If not, then I have to figure out what to do with the current edit history for Template:NYCS. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If it doesn't get deleted, then I'd rather leave everything alone to prevent any mishaps. The last thing I want to see is a screwed-up edit history. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should use the color codes from Template:NYCS color by filling in the first parameter, {{NYCS color|{{{color}}}}} with the appropriate color code instead of the hex/bg color codes.
I think we should also have a custom line parameter for filling in more than one line. This comes in handy for shared stations/transfer-points.
Why switch the color mechanism? Nearly all of the infoboxes are already coded with the correct color, and revising the infobox to use Template:NYCS color would require every one of the 460-odd infobox calls to be fixed. This isn't like the service templates, which might have to be changed quickly and easily. The colors don't change.
The more I think about this, the more I fail to see the point of reverting him. He's adding unsourced material, but the articles are full of unsourced material, and if I were to remove it all, or even just the details of which car types are currently on which service (which I doubt can be sourced), you guys would lynch me. How is this any different? --NE200:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How am I to determine that? Other than the bad grammar and formatting that he uses (which I've also seen from "good guys" like BWCNY), there's nothing that distinguishes his additions from the other information, since no sources are provided for me to verify with. --NE201:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're opposed to using redirects, so you'd want to use {{NYCS|1}} once the change is made. But of course you shouldn't change the existing ones. --NE202:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're going to replace all {{NYCS xx}} templates, you might as well wait a couple of days; then you can replace them with {{NYCS |xx}}. There's no rush. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.
Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].
Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page is seeminglythousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything. It's inadvisable to worry about performance.
One area where it is preferable to fix redirected links is in series templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g. {{US Presidents}} on George W. Bush). In this case, where the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), that link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
What I would do is get rid of redirects when you are rewriting redirects and fix them to direct links. Other than that, I usually don't, although I have in the past, edit an article to fix a redirect. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the NYCS template would look really nice with each line's symbol linked to the article, in place of just the letter or number. For example, clicking on an E or V train's symbol would take you to the respective article. I used the Click template to create the bullets for the talk page, but a separate template could be created if used. Note: I simply posted the code only because the template will not work here on the talk page. If you'd like to try it for yourself, paste the code into the Sandbox.
{{Click || image = NYCS-bull-trans-E.svg| link = E (New York City Subway service)| width = 20px| height = 20px}}
While I was going around the rolling stock, I found that some articles had a table for car specifications and others didn't. I used a table someone else had and improved it a little. Perhaps we could use this as a standard of sorts:
I have no preference as I see both used interchangeably, but the abbreviated version seems to be in widespread use. Tinlinkin06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a nag now, but this should be dealt with. Service changes and General Orders happen every week. There are some that screw up service for a while. And there are some that go away on Monday never to return. So here's my proposal: If it is not a long term service change, and by long term, meaning something lasting for a period of three months or more, it's is not notable. I call this the three month rule. I'm also bringing this to attention because of the media attention recieved by the disruption of 7 trains because of the new switch installation. Pacific Coast Highway{talk • contribs}19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The media tends to overhype certain short term service disruptions, and I don't know why we have to record those. The MTA also does a poor job (in my opinion, at least) in issuing press/news releases compared to other transportation systems, so those disruptions seem to be ordinary or non-notable in the MTA's eyes. But is there a reason why three months is "long term"? And are we recording station rehabilitations this way? Tinlinkin10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What's up?
Hey, guys, I'm back from wikibreak. I'll be removing the notice from my user page soon but I may not be editing as much, so hopefully I'll be back editing to regular levels in no time. Anyway, I see that NE2 has created a brand new infobox for the LIRR. Great work, NE2! I myself created an infobox for the MNRR using the same format, except for the MNRR, I bolded and italicized (is that a real word?) the station name. If any changes should be needed to any of the infobox(es), here are the links:
The MTA seems to be conflicted about that; [19] includes both "the NYCT subway system is composed of two groups of lines, the A Division and B Division" and "NYC Transit installed SONET nodes in the three subway divisions: IRT, BMT, and IND". --NE203:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But which one is correct? Is it possible that operations uses A/B and other areas like station maintenance use IND/IRT/BMT? We could put them at A/B and clearly state in the intro that A is also known as IRT and B is IND/BMT. --NE204:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It kinda seems redundant to me, but I like PCHs idea. They are better known by these divisions, even though the IRT, BMT and IND division monikers are still used for historical purposes. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, why are you creating a new article to attach to Flatbush Depot in Bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)?, there is New York City Transit buses; Why don't you add that? You are gonna create a massive article. I rather summarized all depots not the full story about a depot. Also revert Flatbush Depot edit back, unless you have good amount of reasons. I think removing rosters will be a go if there is concrete proof, the assigned routes should stay and put a citation tag to it. BWCNY05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there will ever be a reliable source for the rosters. Wikipedia should only include material that can be attributed to a reliable source. --NE207:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Syosset (LIRR station) is one of the articles posted for {{Did you know}} and is shown on the Main Page. I didn't expect little old me could write an interesting article. If an interesting fact pops up from a new article in this group I'll nominate it, or better yet, you should nominate it. Tinlinkin20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Tfds (continued)
I guess that since we have fixed all transclusions to link to the master template, NYCS, I guess now we can start nominating all the service-specific templates (the line templates will stay, as per a past discussion). Shall I go ahead and start the Tfds? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Seventh Avenue,continued
I noticed that we still haven't finished our discussion on what the suffix for the Seventh Avenue station should be. Although emergency exit signs say IND Queens Blvd line, the problem is that the station is shared with 6 Av. trains as well. The southern portion is chained as such, and there is no physical track connections east or west of that station. This matter also implies with Dekalb Avenue, the one located under Flatbush Avenue and the other underneath Wyckoff. Why would Dekalb/Flatbush be a part of the Broadway Line (although they are served by Broadway trains) when the other stations are located a part of the 4th Av. line and Brighton line?
Suggestions:
MoveDeKalb Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to DeKalb Avenue (New York City Subway): Although NE2 moved the article already, the station is shared by two lines as indicated by chaining. The past name conflicted with the other station names because the other stations going north and south were part of a different line. How could DeKalb Avenue be apart of the Broadway line while the trunk line is located in Manhattan?
Canal Street in Chinatown has the same issue, or close. Just add the disambig template, otheruses4. I know we shouldn't rely on it too much or go in overkill mode with it, but it's there when necessary, and for these cases, we will need them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with NE2, multiple stations with the same name. Also, why should one station be considered more notable than another? That is the implication of using {{otheruses4}}. I also don't understand why there is so much restlessness with the subway naming conventions. Tinlinkin02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What I am trying to do is to put this to and end by reviving past discussions with no consensus reached. With consensus reached, we won't have to worry about them again, then we won't have to put off current tasks. Start off with one task, then move on to the next one.
So anyway, here's what the plan for DeKalb Avenue would be (for this, we would use dab link or otheruses4:)
This redirect is about the subway station located at DeKalb and Flatbush Avenues. For the station located at DeKalb and Wyckoff Avenues, see DeKalb Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line).
Here's Seventh Avenue (two other uses will be used instead):
There really is no big deal as to why we have to rely on emergency signs, as they don't count as reliable sources. We already know that the stations are shared by two lines, but why should we let signs dictate that it isn't the case when it is? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't rely on emergency exit signs for DeKalb; you in fact agreed with the move above. For Seventh, it's more of a choice of what to disambiguate as – it's definitely a Seventh Avenue station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line. --NE203:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But chaining itself indicates that the station is a part of two lines, not just one alone. We shouldn't rely on emergency exit signs. New York City Subway chaining indicates these two stations are shared by two lines also. Go to these two stations and you'll see the different chains on walls and signals as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We rejected that, since those names would be too long and awkward, and I agreed with whoever said that. We have those dab links for a reason. Although we don't need them for every station, these don't meet that case. Why can't we just rename them and use dab links? They're there for a reason. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not about the classification of shared-line stations (DeKalb & Flatbush, 7th Avenue & 53rd Street, etc.), but the station articles as a primary topic and Wikipedia naming conventions. As I said, {{otheruses4}} is used for disambiguation when the article that the template is used in is the primary topic or the parent of a group of articles (emphasized for the basis of my argument). A page like 96th Street (New York City Subway) has no problems being a disambig page as each station can be considered as a target for the reader, and there is no hierarchy of importance. But if, say, Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) takes on the contents of Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), even if {{otheruses4}} is used, we are forced to assume that the 7th/53rd station is more important or notable than the others. I doubt that is the case. I would strictly oppose a move and others similar on this basis.
I noticed that you moved 50th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) to 50th Street (New York City Subway) (which was reverted). With that move, we are forced to assume the 8th Avenue station is somehow more notable than the 7th (or maybe the 6th). That is a bad judgment. The chaining issues remain, but do all sides need be addressed in the article name? I'm leaning towards no. The location and orientation of a station (foremost) along with which is the primary service should determine the article name, in my opinion for these cases. I also disagree with the current state of Canal Street (New York City Subway). I hope there is a better name for the Canal Street Broadway/Lexington/Nassau complex. If there is not, then I may settle on the Canal Street complex as the more notable than the 2 other stations and support the current arrangement. I still need to examine other examples like that. Do we accommodate all information on chaining in an article name? If that accommodation is made using (New York City Subway) as part of the name, I cannot agree with that.
Does anyone object if I make a second "simplified" set of these templates, where the time information isn't included? For instance, then you can link to the services in Ocean Hill, Brooklyn using the templates, but without the unnecessary time data. Also, are there any suggestions for naming? Would it even be best to use the current naming for the simplified ones, and move the current ones to something like Template:NYCS Lexington local time? Probably all the uses that need the time are in the infoboxes, and there the code can be changed to call the time templates. --NE219:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And then what happens if they bring back the 9? Or truncate the Z to Myrtle Avenue? Or – for something that's actually planned – extend the G? The idea of the templates is to make other articles that talk about the lines update automatically. --NE203:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Naming for sections of transfer station articles: include "platforms" or not?
The specific platforms are the best target for those station redirects. Standardizing the section names for consistency is preferable (which standard, I have no strong opinion). I am unsure about the individual infoboxes, though. I've never been a fan of what I see as infobox clutter. Tinlinkin23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My question is whether we should title the section "BMT Fourth Avenue Line" or "BMT Fourth Avenue Line platforms". --NE223:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn.
My favourite subway cars are R40, R40M and R42.
I'd wish for an incomming stock (next order after R160ies) to resemble R40ies, and R42s.
PATH is part of the scope of this project, even if it is pretty much forgotten when one thinks about subways in NYC. --NE216:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Service History Edits
A lot of the service history info was removed for copyright issues. I want that information to be put back in the article, but written in our own words. I will be adding some info of my own, but I can't do it alone. I need your help. Please find whatever information you can about each individual subway line's service history and add it on the article. Thank You. The Legendary Ranger22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Legendary Ranger. But NE2 removed them without providing an adequate reason. He could have tried to fix them but he didn't. They have to be put back, though. They are really vital to the service article and about its history. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed them because they were copyright violations, not "without providing an adequate reason". Please stop lying. --NE202:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No one's lying here. But you removed the information, which is really important. Did you say in your edit summary that the text was copyrighted or whatever? I don't think so. And on top of that, you're showing borderline symptoms of insubordination and consensus breaching, once again. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Whenever there is a copyright violation, i.e. something taken word-for-word from any source, the copyrighted text in Wikipedia should be removed and it is the burden of the regular editors to fix it. The text is always recorded in public history (unless the article is deleted), so it's not really lost and you can always retrieve it. Just write in your own words. It takes a bit of work, but it will be a great reward. The source which was used may even be used as a citation. Tinlinkin05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Never let R40ies to be gone!
R40ies are roomy for cheerful friends
As of me, they are the part of my everyday American Life.
Today, it is 15 years as I live in USA. My first two appartmens (since April 1992) were in along the West End Line. That time, it was served by a route B, which used R40ies, until April 1997. R68s entered B line R40ies went on Q.
Now I live in Sheepshead Bay, where now Q and B lines runs.
In summer 2001, when I already lived in SHeepshead BayManhattan Bridge Repairs started. Subway Route B terminated in Manhattan, being replaced my route W in Brooklyn. Brighton line was served by Q local and Q express routes. R40ies are again close to me, yet in another part of Brooklyn.
I vas very gald that in February 2004, after the Manhattan Bridge repairs route B returned in Brooklyn, and ran over the Brighton Express line. So, B trains are again R40ies! IN addition to nearnes of my appartment R40ies retained back a "B" letter. History Returns to us and repeats itself.
R40ies will be gone soon
being replaced by R160ies. Butafter the complete arrival of R160ies there will be new fleet ordered. So: make the new fleet look like R40ies!!!!!
The R40 slants are the most likely cars to be replaced anyway, as well as a few R32s, all R38s, R40 slants, and some R42s. The R44s will be replaced as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles: "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)." and "Avoid other uses of boldface in the first paragraph, so the reader will not confuse the text with synonyms." B Division looks fine without bold. --NE220:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to merge New York City Subway accessibility into List of New York City Subway stations. The merge tag has appeared for a couple days now. But as I was looking at the WP:NYCPT home page again, I noticed the blurb about accessibility. This propmpted me to post a message here for broader discussion, just to be sure of consensus.
I don't think time periods are necessary (but a notes column should mention the four stations that are not open 24/7). It's easy enough to change anyway by adding or removing |time=1. --NE208:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in New York City', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single 'Streets and Squares' category. I've also let the Wikiproject New York know. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. --Keefer4 | Talk01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
![[5]](http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-47-63.png){kind=link}