![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
If anyone sees edits to any articles regarding service changes set to occur on September 9, 2006, feel free to revert immediately. There is no source for this information. Articles that I've seen affected include D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). Keep an eye out on other articles, too; thanks. -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This person is repeatedly vandalizing these articles. Although there are numerous IP Addresses who are responsible, I think one person is soley to blame since he/she could be constantly changing computers or the IP Address of one computer is changing periodicly. Every single member of WikiProject: New York City Subway should add the following articles to their watchlist, B (New York City Subway service), Q (New York City Subway service), W (New York City Subway service), D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). We have to work together to stop this vandalism. The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to adding Metrocard to the navbox? It would seem pretty logical to me. Alphachimp talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The alleged September service changes on the B and D routes, and the alleged introduction of the T route, were once again added to the articles for those services today, without attribution. I reverted them.
Somebody is being very persistent. Marc Shepherd 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Who added info about T train service? That won't be around for 10-15 years, if ever! -- imdanumber1 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. This IP user is doing it again! If there are such changes, it would be said so on the MTA site.
I created a page documenting the vandalism here. Gimmetrow 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The IP user, 152.163.100.68, has added unverifable contributions to the D (NYCS service) article. There are no such changes, as I have checked the MTA website for such G. Os. I am not sure how to revert his edits, or else I would. -- imdanumber1 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Great WikiProject here. I'm actually quite impressed at the quality of some of the station and line articles; I hadn't even thought such articles would exist. In any case, when checking out the pages of the train stops near where I live, it occurred to me that one thing which might improve the quality of these articles are pictures of the individual stations, or maybe a picture of the neighborhood in which the stations sit. I could take them if people are interested...would people be interested in that? -- Deville ( Talk) 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the changes made to several articles regarding Sept. 9, 2006 subway changes. At some point several IP users keep adding these so called changes to several articles, about how they will affect service, as well as what subway cars will be used. Luckily, after a while, some editors reverted them, only after a while they were doing it again. One editor showed me where they got these ridiculous ideas from, which was a talk page called SubTalk, where these changes were really fantasy (I'm surprised these IP users took it seriously).
I am glad these changes are on hiatus (for now), as I would have given up. But really, wouldn't they have just enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them? Also, if these service changes were to take affect, it would happen on a Sunday or a Monday, and clearly, Sept. 9th is on a Saturday. However, for now, I have not seen much action from them; I often check on the articles that they edit (or in this case, vandalize). But if these changes were to take affect, I wouldn't be so surprised. -- imdanumber1 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That was the same thing I was saying to myself, Marc; If there are such changes, wouldn't the MTA let us know at least a couple of months in advance, as well as posting up notices in stations, and brochures depicting this? -- imdanumber1 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the URL for SubTalk. I want to take a look at it immediately to see what the hell is going on? The Legendary Ranger 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected a few of the affected pages. I've already banned one of the vandal accounts. I intend to remove the protection after September 9. alphaChimp laudare 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent alphaChimp. -- imdanumber1 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It' already September 9, 2006, and I just went on the subway and didn't see any service changes. I think we can unblock those users and unprotect the articles that were vandalized, but keep those articles on your watchlist because someone else might try to do the same thing, setting up a different date. The Legendary Ranger 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, was just going to post a similar message like this myself. Stupid IP users! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Any good reason not to merge the three separate 14th Street–Union Square articles into one? -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The two 168th Street stations are - for all intents and purposes - one station complex. The IRT station is operated as an auxilliary station to 168th Street on the A Line. Booth N-12 is the Main Booth, and Booth R-182 is the Part Time Booth which comes out of, and returns to N-12. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to see 168th Street as a complex. It's a simple transfer between two lines that cross. It's less "integrated" than most other transfers of this nature—the only connection between the two stations is via elevator. It just happens that the two stations have the same name. This is not very different than the example you gave—which is why 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) and Times Square-42nd Street (New York City Subway) are still separate articles. -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest a few rough guidelines. If it's one dot on the official subway map, then in general it should be one article. The fact that two or more stations were combined years ago is an historical detail. To the typical "reasonable person," one dot on the map looks and smells like one subway station. By this guideline, the following should be merged (there are probably others I've missed):
The advantage of this standard is that it's very easy to apply. There's no subjective argument about the complexity of the passageways, and so forth. Several of Larry V's examples are separate dots on the map, and wouldn't fall under this proposal (though a couple of them would).
There may be a handful of cases where there are multiple dots on the map, but it "seems like" one station on the street. The Fulton Street complex fits this description, given the fact that there is a current project to better integrate the platforms, and it is actually labeled "Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau" on most of the street-level entrances.
As the distance between technically-connected stations increases, the argument for merging becomes more tenuous. I'm fine with 42nd Street on the Eighth Avenue Line being a separate article from the rest of the Times Square complex. For similar reasons, I wouldn't merge the 14th Street articles at Sixth and Seventh Avenues, even though they are connected by a similar block-long passageway. Marc Shepherd 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your arguments about merging or not merging stations into singular complexes is the fact that the eventual goal of the NYCT is to consolidate all joint stations into singular complexes. For example, Pacific Street - which was a seperate station from the BMT Atlantic Avenue station even in the pre-Unification days, and became 3 seperate stations until Booths B-1. B-2, R-611 and R-616 were eliminated. Today, Pacific Street now bears both Pacific Street and Atlantic Avenue signs, and all three stations are now staffed from the main booth, R-610. Booth C-9 at Pacific Street is considered subordinate to R-610. For all intents and purposes, it is now one unified complex. The Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau Complex is going to get more complex when it gets merged with Cortlandt Street on the R, and - by extension - Chambers Street-World Trade Center on the A/C/E/2/3. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The three 14th Street–Union Square articles have been merged into 14th Street-Union Square (New York City Subway). It appears to me that there is broad consensus to merge the other cases where there is one dot on the subway map and/or no thorny naming issues. Marc Shepherd 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Officially, the following station groups are operated as complexes, although not all of them yet have unitary management or supervision. That is the goal, however. In all cases, they all originally were structured - and operated as - stand-alone structures that had nothing to do with their companions. All of the complexes have been assembled over time.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, I don't think that the names of the stations should matter whether or not the complexes should be merged. When it comes to transfers, that is what matters. -- imdanumber1 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the NYCS articles mention service changes that are short-lived, and are only in force during off-hours.
I think our priority should be to describe the system's permanent, or long-lived characteristics. General Orders (GO's) come and go. Riders don't think of Wikipedia as the GO database. Our coverage in that area is not likely to be complete, accurate, or timely. When the GO ends, someone needs to remember to update the page(s) that were temporarily changed.
A good example is the 4 article, which now reads:
All it says is that service is "disrupted." It doesn't say precisely what the disruption is, or the replacement services that are offered. No one, aside from those who already know what is happening, could put this information to practical use.
I would suggest that only service patterns that are expected to be relatively long-lasting belong on Wikipedia. Off-hours or weekend disruptions of a temporary nature do not belong on Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you notice how the MTA updates G.Os. every Friday, I guess we can do the same. We can create a title under the NYCS service pages, with the last title, General Orders. I will try to experiment this in the sandbox, or you can ask me to email it to you. -- imdanumber1 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason there's an overabundance of NYCS templates. Per the manual of style we shouldn't be using templates to generate simple links. It's overkill. I'll be substituting out the rest of them soon. -- Cyde Weys 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and see User talk:Cyde#NYCS templates for more discussion on the issue. -- Cyde Weys 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde Weys has proposed Template:NYCS A for deletion. The nomination states he believes all of the NYCS templates of this ilk should be deleted, but he has proposed only this one first. Given that he is aware of this project's existence, a TfD nomination without a heads-up here seems to be rather underhanded.
In any event, I suggest clicking through to Template:NYCS A to vote. Marc Shepherd 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
switch
will do. The syntax is intuative enough that many editors should be able to edit it without any programming/scripting background. --
Swift
10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Merging a couple of pages into one big station complex should be done, despite the names of the station. Chambers Street-World Trade Center has been merged, despite the name differences. The transfers between station lines should be considered a station complex as long as it is not an out-of system transfer. -- imdanumber1 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I'll start off simply, like creating the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex page, with merging the IRT and BMT Atlantic Avenue pages, as well as the BMT Pacific Street page. I will experiment this in the sandbox. -- imdanumber1 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If we are creating complex pages, the titles should be shown as the following example: Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex.
Okay. For now, however, I have created my own sandbox subpage so I can conduct experiments. What I have did right now is experimented creating a page that could be used, called the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex (New York City Subway). It can be viewed by visting the User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox page.
And I will be willing to help you out Marc with creating the complex pages described above. -- imdanumber1 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have finished creating the
34th Street-Herald Square (New York City Subway) page, which describes both 6th Avenue and Broadway stations of the same name. I will be working on doing the same with others. --
imdanumber1
21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You may now check off 59th Street-Columbus Circle off the List. I just finished merging that too. -- imdanumber1 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As well as [[Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway). -- imdanumber1 23:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've created Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. It's up to you how you want to mention this on the project page, or how to modify it to your needs. Tinlinkin 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look at pages like the IRT Jerome Avenue Line article, the Station Listing Table is a stub, compared to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line or the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line and needs more work. I will be creating a station listing table for this article, as well as others that need attention. -- imdanumber1 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Allan 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
On Template talk:NYCS I've listed a method of merging most of the NYCS* templates (except for {{ NYCS Time}} and such) into one. If agreed to, the new syntax would be {{NYCS|<foo>}} instead of {{NYCS <foo>}}. There would be one template instead of almost a hundred and the old ones, once deprecated and links to them updated, deleted.
The argument for includes the ease of updating and a centralised place for managing the templates. The argument against includes the extra complexity that results from using a m:ParserFunction. This was mentioned above, but got little discussion. Please, those whom it concerns, mention your thoughts on the matter, either below or on the NYCS template talk page. -- Swift 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So, can we start getting together a list of all of the templates that are going o be replaced? -- Cyde Weys 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I see a problem. If a purpose of using the individual line templates is to see what articles link to them, then the old way is better. With all the line templates merged into Template:NYCS, you cannot "see" the arguments that are used to call that template from its "What links here" page. Therefore, finding out what articles call a particular service from the template (say {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}}, which is {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}} , is currently used by Borough Hall and Nevis Street stations) will be impossible to find out (as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes). But I do support the concept of merging; however, if what I described will be a problem, all bets are off, unless a better implementation can be found. Tinlinkin 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
{{NYCS nn}}
, where nn is one or two characters (A-Z, 1-9). I don't know if this is any better from a server load or esthetic point of view, but makes a number of very simple templates go away, and no functionality is lost.My idea was to expand {{ NYCS}} to take two arguments, a line and an optional text. A call to {{NYCS|B|123a}} would form B. Articles could either use this code, or use {{ NYCS_Brighton_express}}. The former would involve a lot of conversion and would be difficult to maintain. The latter would involve templates calling templates, which is discouraged. However, all articles with the {{ NYCS Brighton express}} template could be found easily, and any changes could be handled in a single location for all articles. More complex expressions, like {{ NYCS Eastern center}}, would contain {{NYCS|2|1}}{{NYCS|3|1234}}{NYCS|4}}{{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 2, 3, 4, and 5. Thoughts on this? Gimmetrow 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
;-)
but am liking it less and less (I didn't quite realise the enormity of the task caused by the number of NYCS templates). I'm fine with merging {{
NYCS Time}}'s functionality. Since it used to only take one parameter, it will be easy to make backwards compatible. --
Swift
00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)What is the purpose of the NYCS templates? I came to this discussion via the TfD discussion and initially thought there wasn't much good reason for {{ NYCS A}}'s existance. Reading comments, I saw the benefit of having only to update line information in a template, rather than on a multitude of pages. There, however, was no single place for these templates (this was before they were added to the project category) so I figured, why not just merge them, then both content and style could be hadled centrally.
I think some of us in this discussion have different notions on what the purpose of these templates is. It may be useful to clarify that. -- Swift 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
{{|NYCS Q}}
(10 characters) than '''[[Q (New York City Subway service)|Q]]'''
(44 characters).'''Q'''
. Given the many hundreds of subway articles, there would be no chance of easily finding every use of the bare letter Q.{{ NYCS}} currently looks like it's trying to handle too much. Are we going to go forward with the {{NYCS **}} -> {{NYCS|**}} thing, the most simple of solutions to handle the common ones? -- Cyde Weys 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[[{{{1}}} (New York City Subway)|]]
??_(New York City Subway system)
pages have redirects. My oversight occurred partly since I mistyped the link above. --
Swift
03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Although
Cyde is "itching for it," one has to ask, "What is the problem for which this is the solution?" We're long past Cyde's original premise—that such templates shouldn't exist at all, or should always be subst'ed. As the proposal has now evolved, all that would change syntactically is that the editor would enter, and see, {{NYCS|A}}
in the edit window, rather than {{NYCS A}}
. Both would display identically. All that would change in the background is that approximately four dozen fairly simple templates would be replaced with one that has a switch statement. (The switch statement is necessary if the proposal is to work correctly, for reasons I can go into later, if anyone wants to hear about it.) I am basically supportive of the idea, although I feel no great passion that it needs to be done. The template {{
NYCS basic}}, by the way, does not appear to be needed.
Marc Shepherd
12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
User:AEMoreira042281 has created a new navbox called {{ MTA (New York)}}, and has started adding it to many of the subway pages. The problem is that it is quite large, and duplicates quite a bit of the information in {{ NYCS navbox}}. For an example, see 1 (New York City Subway service).
I would suggest that there is no need for two navboxes. If there are important links missing from the one we have, we should add them. If the new navbox is better, we should deprecate the old one. However, there should not be two. Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The MTA web site says there are 468 subway stations. I asked them for a list, and they replied to look at a subway map! So, I used the map to come up with my own list of 468 stations making some (hopefully reasonable) assumptions about whether or not to count separate lines in the same "complex" as part of the same "station".
I then compared my list to the "List of New York City Subway Stations" here on Wikipedia, and it turns out they are almost identical once you account for differences between the names on the list vs. the names on the map.
As a result, I'd like to propose that the following changes be made to the list here:
1. Move the following permanently closed/abandoned stations to a separate section that does not count toward the total:
18th Street (closed) on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line 91st Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) (closed) City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed) Dean Street (BMT Franklin Avenue Line) (closed) Worth Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)
2. Eliminate the duplicate entry for "East Broadway (IND Sixth Avenue Line)" which appears under both "B" and "E". I think it belongs under "E" since unlike (for example) "W 4 St" which is just a section of 4th Street, "East Broadway" has nothing to do with Broadway.
3. Split the following "complexes" into separate stations:
14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line becomes
14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line 14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Broadway Line 14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Canarsie Line
42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, IRT Flushing Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line) becomes
42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle) 42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Flushing Line) 42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)
42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, BMT Broadway Line, IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line) becomes
42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle) 42nd Street-Times Square (BMT Broadway Line) 42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) 42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Flushing Line)
Note that I am NOT proposing that these "split" links point to separate articles, nor am I advocating any changes to station names (just to avoid what seem to be 2 of the most contentious issues).
With these changes, the list of stations here would be exactly 468, although it would certainly be nice if the MTA would publish their list so it could be verified.
Finally, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who has worked on creating the "New York City Subway" part of Wikipedia - your work is appreciated :)
Hey Marc, I have finished merging all of the station complexes you stated in Station Complex (continued). Now we can get to the harder ones soon enough now that we have the easier ones out of our way. -- imdanumber1 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are my views on the remaining list of station complexes mentioned above:
(edits to section above made by Imdanumber1)
“ | Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". | ” |
Hey guys, Sorry about those last two articles I merged. Pacific Coast Highway was opposed to them. Sorry PCH!
Anyway, from now on, we should discuss what the name of station complexes should be until we can agree on a good name.
Anyway, I have problems with some of the names myself! For example, Marc suggested merging Fifth Avenue-Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line) and 4nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) into 4nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). I remain opposed to this, as the Flushing station's name is ommitted. So I came up with Fifth Avenue-42nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Too bad it was reverted. These station names with more than three segments should be left until later, when a thorough decision can be made. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I know about that, PCH, but stations that are connected via passageway, despite its length (example: like between Times Square and Port Authority, which is a block long), is considered a complex, to me and Marc that is. I'm don't have problems your opinions, but I was against your suggestion, and agreeing with Marc, I thought it would be okay to merge. The move was reverted, however, and this might proably require further suggestion until a decision can be made on this. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Can you give me a good reason why you were against these two specifically, as a lot of other stations I merged are also two seperate stations that are connected somehow?
I cannot agree with the fact that a part of the station's name is ommitted. I'm fine with 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue, but 42nd Street-Bryant Park seems a little farfetched to me. No offense, Marc, but I do not agree that the station's name should be that way. Readers may not be able to recgonize that the station is a complex, especially if they run a search, where mostly a title is given, along with some contents within the page relevant to the search. We might as well call the station Fifth Avenue-42nd Street (New York City Subway) and omit Bryant Park then. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That name seems like a good idea, Marc. Bryant Park (New York City Subway) seems fair to me. However, don't lose hope. If we can deal with Bryant Park, we can deal with the others. For example: We can merge Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street into Brooklyn Bridge-Chambers Street (New York City Subway). We can also merge Long Island City-Court Square and 23rd Street-Ely Avenue into Court Square-23rd Street. Tell me what you think of these moves so this project can continue. I will deal with the Bryant Park move. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a page called Canal Street (disambiguation). Like other articles that have the same name, there are disambigs. --
Imdanumber1 (
Talk |
contribs)
14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You told me at the beginning of this mini-project, that we shouldn't use inconsistent names. But if you want to use a new title, just move the article (again). No need for a revert. Too bad Alphachimp, Cecropia, and Larry V aren't here. Then we would get somewhere. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
When we started this merging project, you said not to get into the case of inconsistent names. Adding the "Chinatown Complex" is inconsistent, and I don't believe it should be added. However, because of the disambig page, we can add a caption, stating: This article is about the Canal Street Complex. For other uses, see Canal Street (disambiguation). There is a template for this kind of caption, and I believe it will help so we don't get into the matter of inconsistent names. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's September 10th, and there are no such subway changes. I rode the trains this morning; no changes, except for the occasional G. O. I will notify an admin (possibly Cecropia, if available) to see if he/they can unblock the I.P. users and remove the semi-protection from the previously affected articles. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. STILL keep an eye out, however, because the I.P. users might try to depict such changes again with a different date.
I was afraid of this. I will report this to Alphachimp and Cecropia hoping them as sysops can fix this disgusting mess. These uncitable changes are really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish I were an admin now! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the vandals couldn't get enough, and they starting to get on my nerves. Marc Shepherd says that "the B and D articles were vandalised this afternoon." Please revert them on sight if you suspect vandalism. Keep an eye out for ALL subway articles, especially those vandalized by Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem guys, glad we can stop this vandalism by working together. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you tell me that only the adminstrators can protect the articles, Gimmetrow. The Legendary Ranger 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, non-admins can sprotect articles, but only admins can protect articles. Don't get the two confused. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought they could, but then again, I thought so. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Guys, you forgot to protect the R160B subway car article. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unprotecting those articles were not a good idea. I think we ought to protect those articles indefinetely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you are concerned about the subway articles, but we should not protect the pages forever. If that was done all over the mainspace, then what would be the point of having editors then?
I do agree, however, that IP users shouldn't be allowed to edit; they cause too much problems. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Last time, I conducted an experiment to see if anyone liked the new table I made. Apparently no one did because of the verbosity it contained. I have made a few new adjustments. Please view the table and see if you like it. I have made brand new changes so the table might work this time. Please view this page to see if you like the new table.
That is mostly it. With the changes I made, I hope we can agree on the new table, containing new changes made, as well as implementing old ideas from the current one.-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I want this table to reflect the same one as seen on the MTA page, so it is obvious that the table will replace (probably) the current one seen on services.
Note: You know those symbols that are used on the MTA page, that depict what time of the day trains run? If possible, I want to upload them so that we can use them. Those symbols can replace the text that actually defines what the symbol mean. Maybe I should try making this table more robust, like putting a new service, such as the 5, to make the table look bigger and this will give us a good idea on how the new table can benefit. But let me know what you think of uploading those symbols; this will help us get further into detail.-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the table seen at my sandbox ( click here), to make it show when 5 trains run. I stopped at East 180th Street, but the table seems worse than before. Putting text that shows when trains stop at a specific station doesn't seem to work, just like what Marc said. This is why I want to upload those bullets seen on the MTA website and make those substitute the text. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Marc Shepherd has decided to leave Wikipedia. More information on why he left can be seen on his user page. I myself am verry sorry to see him go, but no one can control his decisions but him. This is irrelevant from the WikiProject, but he made timeless contributions here trying to keep the WikiProject strong. He made his last edit on his userpage, and officially signed off. I hope, however, that he will still read our discussions to see how we are doing, and might, just might, come back and edit again. I myself would like to thank him, except he won't respond. But I wish him good luck outside of Wikipedia, and hope whatever he is doing is worthwhile, From Imdanumber1 at WikiProject New York City Subway,...
-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I, fortunately, won't be as busy as everyone else, because most of my contributions occur during weekday evenings and all times on weekends, since I am at school during the rest of the day, and sleeping at night. But with another gone contributor, I hope the WikiProject doesn't fall apart. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Last time, I made a proposal to make a new table, in order to make it reflect the table used at the MTA website. However, it was turned down, due to the verbosity and because of other issues that would make it undeemable for use. HOWEVER, I have made a few adjustments. I have uploaded some bullets that denote when trains run, called denotations, because it substitutes text. Marc Shepherd agreed with it. (By agreed, I mean beause he's no longer here, because he can't agree with it if he's no longer here.) Anyway, I have made countless numbers of changes and, well, see below.
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
This is the new table I created at my sandbox subpage. The table shows stations that are served by 5 trains. Notice I uploaded images of subway denotations that replaces text, so the table won't be verbose. I am also underway of creating a category for these denotations, which I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons (you can upload a bunch of stuff there).
I hope you like the table, and maybe, just maybe, we can agree on it. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The table above has been replaced with the svg-style, which makes it look better.
And also, since the MTA uses the blue one, WP:NYCS should too, as it is on MTA nomenclature. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that awkward. I don't think we should use side by side symbols; only one. Whichever symbol that sees more service than the other is the one that should be used. For example: the 5 train sees service during rush hours in the peak direction between 3rd Avenue and East 180th Street, but not during late nights. Same thing for the 4 train south of Utica Avenue. During rush hours in the peak direction, 4 trains see little service there, but more of it during late nights. One would be better than using two. But if it conflicts, say so below the table. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
MTA. But I saved them as images and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that. Since the subway bullets were probably uploaded from the MTA, and we haven't had trouble with those, then we might not have trouble using these denotation icons. The tag that says, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", are used with the subway bullets, as well as the denotation icons. So I think we are safe. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
So, I would like to get opinions on the table so it can meet everyone's requirements. Marc Shepherd likes it, and Pacific Coast Highway has some concerns to it as well. I am still working on some stuff. I want to get everyone's opinion on the table before I hold a consensus. For questions, just contact me. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly clear with the copyright (public domain, fair use, etc.) for images. They need licensing, or they will be deleted. I have licensing for these images so there is no need to delete them. Since these have licensing (PD), I am sure we should be fine.
That said, I am clear with copyright. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that we shouldn't slavishly imitate the MTA's table, but I am somewhat officializing it more. And what does " Wikipedia is not a timetable" have to do with this? That doesn't make sense.
Larry, from my last proposal, you said the table was too verbose. It isn't now, so what problems is it making now? Can you give me a more legitimate reason? If you have any thoughts, let me know. We can work this out. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...well, we haven't had any problem until now with this with the copyright, and until Larry came up with "Wikipedia is not a timetable". And I know that we shouldn't have to mimic their table, but making the table more robust would be a major improvement. It reduces the words, which makes the table clear, concise, less verbose, and for the most part, easy to use. The table currently seen on the subway service pages doesn't meet this table's requirements/standards, from my opinion. We use symbols to define when the stations are served by certain train routes. PCH made a great suggestion to use more than one symbol to combine when a station isn't served by the train route at certain times of the day. What I am saying is that, I am disagreeing with you Larry, what would make Wikipedia a timetable would be using a format seen in MTA's timetables (respectively) showing that during certain times of the day, there are a whole bunch of time listings that show when people should expect a train to reach their station. That said, the symbols have nothing to do with making Wikipedia a timetable, and that is what makes people miss the point. Using time listings that show when a station is served by a route would make Wikipedia a timetable; symbols are a whole different story. They replace text; I don't see anything big with using symbols instead of text. The late Marc Shepherd didn't see anything wrong with using symbols. He said that it makes a big difference and reduces the amount of words so people won't have to literally read the table. Some non-Wikipedians I know would actually go with it. Using a format of the MTA's table would make it familiar because if people ever use Wikipedia and put up a search for the NYCS services, they can easily recognize the table because the format is similar to the MTA's, where people that see the MTA's table also agree that it is easy to use. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs)
P.S. To make sure that there is no copyright issue with using the symbols, I will ask them to see if the images have any copyright issues behind them. It is only fair, and we can get copyrighting behind us so we can proceed. That said, the discussion should resume tomorrow, since the MTA takes a day to respong to queries.
Does that mean it will take longer on a weekend? Well, they DO reply, sooner than usual. Let's hope that they will let us use their images. Then we can proceed. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I created the SVG subway bullets. Fonts are not copyrightable, and adding a circle with a color around a letter is not enough to create authorship. These symbols are also so simple that they are probably public domain. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to commons, let me know. – flamurai ( t) 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's my version of the legend. (The all except late nights bullet is the wrong size because of the render bug.) If you know anything about how to implement show/hide in Mediawiki, let me know. –
flamurai (
t)
11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops late nights only |
![]() |
Stops late nights and weekends only |
![]() |
Stops weekdays during the day |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
An example showing only the items above (there's a little bug with the spacing... gotta look into that)
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
Usage:
{{User:Flamurai/NYCS icon legend | alltimes = | allexceptrush = | allexceptnights = | nightsonly = | nightsweekends = | weekdaysonly = | rushonly = | rushpeak = }} |
Good suggestion, Flamurai; This doesn't look bad at all! Keep up the good work!!! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone help me make a list of the hybrid icons we might need, such as the "all but nights and rush hours in peak dir" icon? – flamurai ( t) 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think we are getting somewhere now. I do have a sandbox subpage, and I have changed the new table there and added your new bullets. However, I would not endorse slicing half of the all except rush and all but night bullets and merge the two halves together. Pacific Coast Highway made a good suggestion to use more than one symbol. Besides, not all of the train lines have the same service pattern, which would make the merged one you proposed redundant, and less commonly used. The "symbol-under-symbol" configuration, that Pacific Coast Highway suggested, is what I would do. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also deleted the old table above and replaced it with the SVG-style bullets and legend. Good work, you couldn't put it any better, Flamurai. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We should also create templates so we can replace the image names with {{NYCS all times}} as seen on the table when one is editing it, and vice versa. I will work into this. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
When we create the templates for the icons (icons is a better name, instead of denotation), starting with "NYCS", should we use numbers ({{NYCS 18/7}} or ({{NYCS all day}}) to substitute "all times except late nights"? I'm neutral on it, but I want to see what you would decide on. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've created Template:User WP:NYCS. You can feel free to add it to your userpage. If you'd like, you can make any modifications to it if you want. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to the members of this WikiProject (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) for my recent inactivity on Wikipedia. I recently started my freshman year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an exceptionally large volume of schoolwork has severely restricted my available leisure time. I will try to return as I become accustomed to the academic program here. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad to have you back, Larry. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You just started college, Larry? The Legendary Ranger 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I support the usage of hex codes in the navigational box. I don't see why not. Pacific Coast Highway { Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
These are the colors I used for the bullets. They're based on the printed map (not the PDF map... those colors are not correct because of color space translation from CMYK to RGB). Colors are really inconsistent from sign to sign, from station to station, etc. – flamurai ( t) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Link: User:Flamurai/NYCS colors
I feel that we need to (yet again) come to an agreement to how we name stations. I have said this over and over, but I will repeat myself: THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL NAMES FOR ANY SUBWAY STATION. The reason I say this is because the map may interpret the name one way, but may write it differently on another part of the SAME map. And schedules tend to have thier own variant. And not to mention station signs that decide to come up with extended names.
Another part of this issue is that if we are to use these so-called official names on the map, then can someone explain how we are merging complexes together with some made up name, nowhere on the map, schedules, or on station signs? Paradox, anyone? Pacific Coast Highway { Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Any good reason not to add appropriate line colors to the NYCS line templates? Let me know. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: An example is changing B to B. Surely I see nothing wrong with that. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we oughta just leave the colors they way they are. Using colors that match their lines are very distracting and people will have a hard time finding thier lines. Also, the yellow color for the BMT Broadway Line is too light to see clearly. The Legendary Ranger 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll revert it. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's finally time that we have a consensus on the new subway table. It's been two months, and I think we are ready to decide its future. A lot of work has been put into it, making SVG icons (thanks to Flamurai), a new legend (thanks to Flamurai), to name a few. Therefore, I would like to thank Flamurai for reviving the table, because if it wasn't for him, I'd be stuck. I would also like to thank PCH, for minor (albeit helpful) ideas as well, since you two actually tried to help while others opposed it without trying to implement ideas. I really hope everyone votes support, however, since time and hard work definitely went into this. Voting ends Friday. Thanks!
Support
Resolution: As of Friday at midnight, Support has prevailed! I thank everyone for voting, and I hope everyone has had a Happy Thanksgiving. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If something is ever wrong, just say so, but no need to be pushy about it.
I sorta noticed that over time. People are aggressive, but things do need to get done. Also, there was a huge space between the bullets on the 5 page, but it wasn't there before. At least it's solved.
Also, that blue icon was terrible, since it's GIF and it rendered badly, so if we can create a SVG blue icon, that'd be great, otherwise, we'll stick with the regular one. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll add them on, if it is okay with PCH. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the blue icons. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Cyde brought it up originally, I was thinking if we should carry out the switch method he proposed. I noticed that we have a template called {{ NYCS}} that we can use for the subway services. We can create a template called {{NYCS line}} so it can be used for the lines. Using these, we can use the switch method, or something like that, which will create {{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 5 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}}. We could also do this for different line sections, creating {{NYCS line|Lexington}} producing 4, 5, 6, and <6>.
Then again, a lot of articles and the infobox will have to be edited and reconfigured, but it would be necessary to use the switch templates to reduce the overload of templates at the WP:NYCS category page. Thoughts? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, but using a switch template would reduce the "overload" so we won't have too many service templates. I tried to implement this at {{ NYCS}} but there are currently some issues that I am running into. For example, not all services use {{ NYCS Time}}, but I don't know how we can hide it from the lines that don't have it. I, for now, am stuck. However, I do want to put this into effect. What should I do? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a good idea to convert dozens of templates into one with a huge switch statement. What should be done, however, is converting all of the simple templates (like NYCS A, NYCS B, etc.) into a universal NYCS template that would look like {{NYCS|A}}, {{NYCS|B}}, etc., and could be done without a switch. -- Cyde Weys 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the {{ NYCS}} template covers all of the cases seen above.
This is only anecdotal, but this template could (possibly) replace the following templates if an agreement can be made:
That's my proposal. This is what I am with right now, which will make it easier to use, and therefore being able to get rid of the other 26 service templates if an agreement is made. (Spaking of NYCS templates, the cat page needs cleanup, as we have some templates unused...we gotta look into that.) -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
If anyone sees edits to any articles regarding service changes set to occur on September 9, 2006, feel free to revert immediately. There is no source for this information. Articles that I've seen affected include D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). Keep an eye out on other articles, too; thanks. -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This person is repeatedly vandalizing these articles. Although there are numerous IP Addresses who are responsible, I think one person is soley to blame since he/she could be constantly changing computers or the IP Address of one computer is changing periodicly. Every single member of WikiProject: New York City Subway should add the following articles to their watchlist, B (New York City Subway service), Q (New York City Subway service), W (New York City Subway service), D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). We have to work together to stop this vandalism. The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to adding Metrocard to the navbox? It would seem pretty logical to me. Alphachimp talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The alleged September service changes on the B and D routes, and the alleged introduction of the T route, were once again added to the articles for those services today, without attribution. I reverted them.
Somebody is being very persistent. Marc Shepherd 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Who added info about T train service? That won't be around for 10-15 years, if ever! -- imdanumber1 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. This IP user is doing it again! If there are such changes, it would be said so on the MTA site.
I created a page documenting the vandalism here. Gimmetrow 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The IP user, 152.163.100.68, has added unverifable contributions to the D (NYCS service) article. There are no such changes, as I have checked the MTA website for such G. Os. I am not sure how to revert his edits, or else I would. -- imdanumber1 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Great WikiProject here. I'm actually quite impressed at the quality of some of the station and line articles; I hadn't even thought such articles would exist. In any case, when checking out the pages of the train stops near where I live, it occurred to me that one thing which might improve the quality of these articles are pictures of the individual stations, or maybe a picture of the neighborhood in which the stations sit. I could take them if people are interested...would people be interested in that? -- Deville ( Talk) 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the changes made to several articles regarding Sept. 9, 2006 subway changes. At some point several IP users keep adding these so called changes to several articles, about how they will affect service, as well as what subway cars will be used. Luckily, after a while, some editors reverted them, only after a while they were doing it again. One editor showed me where they got these ridiculous ideas from, which was a talk page called SubTalk, where these changes were really fantasy (I'm surprised these IP users took it seriously).
I am glad these changes are on hiatus (for now), as I would have given up. But really, wouldn't they have just enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them? Also, if these service changes were to take affect, it would happen on a Sunday or a Monday, and clearly, Sept. 9th is on a Saturday. However, for now, I have not seen much action from them; I often check on the articles that they edit (or in this case, vandalize). But if these changes were to take affect, I wouldn't be so surprised. -- imdanumber1 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That was the same thing I was saying to myself, Marc; If there are such changes, wouldn't the MTA let us know at least a couple of months in advance, as well as posting up notices in stations, and brochures depicting this? -- imdanumber1 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the URL for SubTalk. I want to take a look at it immediately to see what the hell is going on? The Legendary Ranger 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected a few of the affected pages. I've already banned one of the vandal accounts. I intend to remove the protection after September 9. alphaChimp laudare 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent alphaChimp. -- imdanumber1 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It' already September 9, 2006, and I just went on the subway and didn't see any service changes. I think we can unblock those users and unprotect the articles that were vandalized, but keep those articles on your watchlist because someone else might try to do the same thing, setting up a different date. The Legendary Ranger 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, was just going to post a similar message like this myself. Stupid IP users! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Any good reason not to merge the three separate 14th Street–Union Square articles into one? -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The two 168th Street stations are - for all intents and purposes - one station complex. The IRT station is operated as an auxilliary station to 168th Street on the A Line. Booth N-12 is the Main Booth, and Booth R-182 is the Part Time Booth which comes out of, and returns to N-12. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to see 168th Street as a complex. It's a simple transfer between two lines that cross. It's less "integrated" than most other transfers of this nature—the only connection between the two stations is via elevator. It just happens that the two stations have the same name. This is not very different than the example you gave—which is why 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) and Times Square-42nd Street (New York City Subway) are still separate articles. -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest a few rough guidelines. If it's one dot on the official subway map, then in general it should be one article. The fact that two or more stations were combined years ago is an historical detail. To the typical "reasonable person," one dot on the map looks and smells like one subway station. By this guideline, the following should be merged (there are probably others I've missed):
The advantage of this standard is that it's very easy to apply. There's no subjective argument about the complexity of the passageways, and so forth. Several of Larry V's examples are separate dots on the map, and wouldn't fall under this proposal (though a couple of them would).
There may be a handful of cases where there are multiple dots on the map, but it "seems like" one station on the street. The Fulton Street complex fits this description, given the fact that there is a current project to better integrate the platforms, and it is actually labeled "Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau" on most of the street-level entrances.
As the distance between technically-connected stations increases, the argument for merging becomes more tenuous. I'm fine with 42nd Street on the Eighth Avenue Line being a separate article from the rest of the Times Square complex. For similar reasons, I wouldn't merge the 14th Street articles at Sixth and Seventh Avenues, even though they are connected by a similar block-long passageway. Marc Shepherd 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your arguments about merging or not merging stations into singular complexes is the fact that the eventual goal of the NYCT is to consolidate all joint stations into singular complexes. For example, Pacific Street - which was a seperate station from the BMT Atlantic Avenue station even in the pre-Unification days, and became 3 seperate stations until Booths B-1. B-2, R-611 and R-616 were eliminated. Today, Pacific Street now bears both Pacific Street and Atlantic Avenue signs, and all three stations are now staffed from the main booth, R-610. Booth C-9 at Pacific Street is considered subordinate to R-610. For all intents and purposes, it is now one unified complex. The Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau Complex is going to get more complex when it gets merged with Cortlandt Street on the R, and - by extension - Chambers Street-World Trade Center on the A/C/E/2/3. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The three 14th Street–Union Square articles have been merged into 14th Street-Union Square (New York City Subway). It appears to me that there is broad consensus to merge the other cases where there is one dot on the subway map and/or no thorny naming issues. Marc Shepherd 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Officially, the following station groups are operated as complexes, although not all of them yet have unitary management or supervision. That is the goal, however. In all cases, they all originally were structured - and operated as - stand-alone structures that had nothing to do with their companions. All of the complexes have been assembled over time.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, I don't think that the names of the stations should matter whether or not the complexes should be merged. When it comes to transfers, that is what matters. -- imdanumber1 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the NYCS articles mention service changes that are short-lived, and are only in force during off-hours.
I think our priority should be to describe the system's permanent, or long-lived characteristics. General Orders (GO's) come and go. Riders don't think of Wikipedia as the GO database. Our coverage in that area is not likely to be complete, accurate, or timely. When the GO ends, someone needs to remember to update the page(s) that were temporarily changed.
A good example is the 4 article, which now reads:
All it says is that service is "disrupted." It doesn't say precisely what the disruption is, or the replacement services that are offered. No one, aside from those who already know what is happening, could put this information to practical use.
I would suggest that only service patterns that are expected to be relatively long-lasting belong on Wikipedia. Off-hours or weekend disruptions of a temporary nature do not belong on Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you notice how the MTA updates G.Os. every Friday, I guess we can do the same. We can create a title under the NYCS service pages, with the last title, General Orders. I will try to experiment this in the sandbox, or you can ask me to email it to you. -- imdanumber1 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason there's an overabundance of NYCS templates. Per the manual of style we shouldn't be using templates to generate simple links. It's overkill. I'll be substituting out the rest of them soon. -- Cyde Weys 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and see User talk:Cyde#NYCS templates for more discussion on the issue. -- Cyde Weys 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde Weys has proposed Template:NYCS A for deletion. The nomination states he believes all of the NYCS templates of this ilk should be deleted, but he has proposed only this one first. Given that he is aware of this project's existence, a TfD nomination without a heads-up here seems to be rather underhanded.
In any event, I suggest clicking through to Template:NYCS A to vote. Marc Shepherd 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
switch
will do. The syntax is intuative enough that many editors should be able to edit it without any programming/scripting background. --
Swift
10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Merging a couple of pages into one big station complex should be done, despite the names of the station. Chambers Street-World Trade Center has been merged, despite the name differences. The transfers between station lines should be considered a station complex as long as it is not an out-of system transfer. -- imdanumber1 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I'll start off simply, like creating the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex page, with merging the IRT and BMT Atlantic Avenue pages, as well as the BMT Pacific Street page. I will experiment this in the sandbox. -- imdanumber1 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If we are creating complex pages, the titles should be shown as the following example: Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex.
Okay. For now, however, I have created my own sandbox subpage so I can conduct experiments. What I have did right now is experimented creating a page that could be used, called the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex (New York City Subway). It can be viewed by visting the User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox page.
And I will be willing to help you out Marc with creating the complex pages described above. -- imdanumber1 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have finished creating the
34th Street-Herald Square (New York City Subway) page, which describes both 6th Avenue and Broadway stations of the same name. I will be working on doing the same with others. --
imdanumber1
21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You may now check off 59th Street-Columbus Circle off the List. I just finished merging that too. -- imdanumber1 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As well as [[Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway). -- imdanumber1 23:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've created Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. It's up to you how you want to mention this on the project page, or how to modify it to your needs. Tinlinkin 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look at pages like the IRT Jerome Avenue Line article, the Station Listing Table is a stub, compared to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line or the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line and needs more work. I will be creating a station listing table for this article, as well as others that need attention. -- imdanumber1 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Allan 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
On Template talk:NYCS I've listed a method of merging most of the NYCS* templates (except for {{ NYCS Time}} and such) into one. If agreed to, the new syntax would be {{NYCS|<foo>}} instead of {{NYCS <foo>}}. There would be one template instead of almost a hundred and the old ones, once deprecated and links to them updated, deleted.
The argument for includes the ease of updating and a centralised place for managing the templates. The argument against includes the extra complexity that results from using a m:ParserFunction. This was mentioned above, but got little discussion. Please, those whom it concerns, mention your thoughts on the matter, either below or on the NYCS template talk page. -- Swift 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So, can we start getting together a list of all of the templates that are going o be replaced? -- Cyde Weys 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I see a problem. If a purpose of using the individual line templates is to see what articles link to them, then the old way is better. With all the line templates merged into Template:NYCS, you cannot "see" the arguments that are used to call that template from its "What links here" page. Therefore, finding out what articles call a particular service from the template (say {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}}, which is {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}} , is currently used by Borough Hall and Nevis Street stations) will be impossible to find out (as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes). But I do support the concept of merging; however, if what I described will be a problem, all bets are off, unless a better implementation can be found. Tinlinkin 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
{{NYCS nn}}
, where nn is one or two characters (A-Z, 1-9). I don't know if this is any better from a server load or esthetic point of view, but makes a number of very simple templates go away, and no functionality is lost.My idea was to expand {{ NYCS}} to take two arguments, a line and an optional text. A call to {{NYCS|B|123a}} would form B. Articles could either use this code, or use {{ NYCS_Brighton_express}}. The former would involve a lot of conversion and would be difficult to maintain. The latter would involve templates calling templates, which is discouraged. However, all articles with the {{ NYCS Brighton express}} template could be found easily, and any changes could be handled in a single location for all articles. More complex expressions, like {{ NYCS Eastern center}}, would contain {{NYCS|2|1}}{{NYCS|3|1234}}{NYCS|4}}{{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 2, 3, 4, and 5. Thoughts on this? Gimmetrow 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
;-)
but am liking it less and less (I didn't quite realise the enormity of the task caused by the number of NYCS templates). I'm fine with merging {{
NYCS Time}}'s functionality. Since it used to only take one parameter, it will be easy to make backwards compatible. --
Swift
00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)What is the purpose of the NYCS templates? I came to this discussion via the TfD discussion and initially thought there wasn't much good reason for {{ NYCS A}}'s existance. Reading comments, I saw the benefit of having only to update line information in a template, rather than on a multitude of pages. There, however, was no single place for these templates (this was before they were added to the project category) so I figured, why not just merge them, then both content and style could be hadled centrally.
I think some of us in this discussion have different notions on what the purpose of these templates is. It may be useful to clarify that. -- Swift 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
{{|NYCS Q}}
(10 characters) than '''[[Q (New York City Subway service)|Q]]'''
(44 characters).'''Q'''
. Given the many hundreds of subway articles, there would be no chance of easily finding every use of the bare letter Q.{{ NYCS}} currently looks like it's trying to handle too much. Are we going to go forward with the {{NYCS **}} -> {{NYCS|**}} thing, the most simple of solutions to handle the common ones? -- Cyde Weys 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[[{{{1}}} (New York City Subway)|]]
??_(New York City Subway system)
pages have redirects. My oversight occurred partly since I mistyped the link above. --
Swift
03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Although
Cyde is "itching for it," one has to ask, "What is the problem for which this is the solution?" We're long past Cyde's original premise—that such templates shouldn't exist at all, or should always be subst'ed. As the proposal has now evolved, all that would change syntactically is that the editor would enter, and see, {{NYCS|A}}
in the edit window, rather than {{NYCS A}}
. Both would display identically. All that would change in the background is that approximately four dozen fairly simple templates would be replaced with one that has a switch statement. (The switch statement is necessary if the proposal is to work correctly, for reasons I can go into later, if anyone wants to hear about it.) I am basically supportive of the idea, although I feel no great passion that it needs to be done. The template {{
NYCS basic}}, by the way, does not appear to be needed.
Marc Shepherd
12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
User:AEMoreira042281 has created a new navbox called {{ MTA (New York)}}, and has started adding it to many of the subway pages. The problem is that it is quite large, and duplicates quite a bit of the information in {{ NYCS navbox}}. For an example, see 1 (New York City Subway service).
I would suggest that there is no need for two navboxes. If there are important links missing from the one we have, we should add them. If the new navbox is better, we should deprecate the old one. However, there should not be two. Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The MTA web site says there are 468 subway stations. I asked them for a list, and they replied to look at a subway map! So, I used the map to come up with my own list of 468 stations making some (hopefully reasonable) assumptions about whether or not to count separate lines in the same "complex" as part of the same "station".
I then compared my list to the "List of New York City Subway Stations" here on Wikipedia, and it turns out they are almost identical once you account for differences between the names on the list vs. the names on the map.
As a result, I'd like to propose that the following changes be made to the list here:
1. Move the following permanently closed/abandoned stations to a separate section that does not count toward the total:
18th Street (closed) on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line 91st Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) (closed) City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed) Dean Street (BMT Franklin Avenue Line) (closed) Worth Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)
2. Eliminate the duplicate entry for "East Broadway (IND Sixth Avenue Line)" which appears under both "B" and "E". I think it belongs under "E" since unlike (for example) "W 4 St" which is just a section of 4th Street, "East Broadway" has nothing to do with Broadway.
3. Split the following "complexes" into separate stations:
14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line becomes
14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line 14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Broadway Line 14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Canarsie Line
42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, IRT Flushing Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line) becomes
42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle) 42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Flushing Line) 42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)
42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, BMT Broadway Line, IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line) becomes
42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle) 42nd Street-Times Square (BMT Broadway Line) 42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) 42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Flushing Line)
Note that I am NOT proposing that these "split" links point to separate articles, nor am I advocating any changes to station names (just to avoid what seem to be 2 of the most contentious issues).
With these changes, the list of stations here would be exactly 468, although it would certainly be nice if the MTA would publish their list so it could be verified.
Finally, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who has worked on creating the "New York City Subway" part of Wikipedia - your work is appreciated :)
Hey Marc, I have finished merging all of the station complexes you stated in Station Complex (continued). Now we can get to the harder ones soon enough now that we have the easier ones out of our way. -- imdanumber1 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are my views on the remaining list of station complexes mentioned above:
(edits to section above made by Imdanumber1)
“ | Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". | ” |
Hey guys, Sorry about those last two articles I merged. Pacific Coast Highway was opposed to them. Sorry PCH!
Anyway, from now on, we should discuss what the name of station complexes should be until we can agree on a good name.
Anyway, I have problems with some of the names myself! For example, Marc suggested merging Fifth Avenue-Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line) and 4nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) into 4nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). I remain opposed to this, as the Flushing station's name is ommitted. So I came up with Fifth Avenue-42nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Too bad it was reverted. These station names with more than three segments should be left until later, when a thorough decision can be made. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I know about that, PCH, but stations that are connected via passageway, despite its length (example: like between Times Square and Port Authority, which is a block long), is considered a complex, to me and Marc that is. I'm don't have problems your opinions, but I was against your suggestion, and agreeing with Marc, I thought it would be okay to merge. The move was reverted, however, and this might proably require further suggestion until a decision can be made on this. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Can you give me a good reason why you were against these two specifically, as a lot of other stations I merged are also two seperate stations that are connected somehow?
I cannot agree with the fact that a part of the station's name is ommitted. I'm fine with 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue, but 42nd Street-Bryant Park seems a little farfetched to me. No offense, Marc, but I do not agree that the station's name should be that way. Readers may not be able to recgonize that the station is a complex, especially if they run a search, where mostly a title is given, along with some contents within the page relevant to the search. We might as well call the station Fifth Avenue-42nd Street (New York City Subway) and omit Bryant Park then. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That name seems like a good idea, Marc. Bryant Park (New York City Subway) seems fair to me. However, don't lose hope. If we can deal with Bryant Park, we can deal with the others. For example: We can merge Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street into Brooklyn Bridge-Chambers Street (New York City Subway). We can also merge Long Island City-Court Square and 23rd Street-Ely Avenue into Court Square-23rd Street. Tell me what you think of these moves so this project can continue. I will deal with the Bryant Park move. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a page called Canal Street (disambiguation). Like other articles that have the same name, there are disambigs. --
Imdanumber1 (
Talk |
contribs)
14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You told me at the beginning of this mini-project, that we shouldn't use inconsistent names. But if you want to use a new title, just move the article (again). No need for a revert. Too bad Alphachimp, Cecropia, and Larry V aren't here. Then we would get somewhere. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
When we started this merging project, you said not to get into the case of inconsistent names. Adding the "Chinatown Complex" is inconsistent, and I don't believe it should be added. However, because of the disambig page, we can add a caption, stating: This article is about the Canal Street Complex. For other uses, see Canal Street (disambiguation). There is a template for this kind of caption, and I believe it will help so we don't get into the matter of inconsistent names. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's September 10th, and there are no such subway changes. I rode the trains this morning; no changes, except for the occasional G. O. I will notify an admin (possibly Cecropia, if available) to see if he/they can unblock the I.P. users and remove the semi-protection from the previously affected articles. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. STILL keep an eye out, however, because the I.P. users might try to depict such changes again with a different date.
I was afraid of this. I will report this to Alphachimp and Cecropia hoping them as sysops can fix this disgusting mess. These uncitable changes are really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish I were an admin now! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the vandals couldn't get enough, and they starting to get on my nerves. Marc Shepherd says that "the B and D articles were vandalised this afternoon." Please revert them on sight if you suspect vandalism. Keep an eye out for ALL subway articles, especially those vandalized by Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem guys, glad we can stop this vandalism by working together. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you tell me that only the adminstrators can protect the articles, Gimmetrow. The Legendary Ranger 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, non-admins can sprotect articles, but only admins can protect articles. Don't get the two confused. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought they could, but then again, I thought so. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Guys, you forgot to protect the R160B subway car article. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unprotecting those articles were not a good idea. I think we ought to protect those articles indefinetely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you are concerned about the subway articles, but we should not protect the pages forever. If that was done all over the mainspace, then what would be the point of having editors then?
I do agree, however, that IP users shouldn't be allowed to edit; they cause too much problems. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Last time, I conducted an experiment to see if anyone liked the new table I made. Apparently no one did because of the verbosity it contained. I have made a few new adjustments. Please view the table and see if you like it. I have made brand new changes so the table might work this time. Please view this page to see if you like the new table.
That is mostly it. With the changes I made, I hope we can agree on the new table, containing new changes made, as well as implementing old ideas from the current one.-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I want this table to reflect the same one as seen on the MTA page, so it is obvious that the table will replace (probably) the current one seen on services.
Note: You know those symbols that are used on the MTA page, that depict what time of the day trains run? If possible, I want to upload them so that we can use them. Those symbols can replace the text that actually defines what the symbol mean. Maybe I should try making this table more robust, like putting a new service, such as the 5, to make the table look bigger and this will give us a good idea on how the new table can benefit. But let me know what you think of uploading those symbols; this will help us get further into detail.-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the table seen at my sandbox ( click here), to make it show when 5 trains run. I stopped at East 180th Street, but the table seems worse than before. Putting text that shows when trains stop at a specific station doesn't seem to work, just like what Marc said. This is why I want to upload those bullets seen on the MTA website and make those substitute the text. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Marc Shepherd has decided to leave Wikipedia. More information on why he left can be seen on his user page. I myself am verry sorry to see him go, but no one can control his decisions but him. This is irrelevant from the WikiProject, but he made timeless contributions here trying to keep the WikiProject strong. He made his last edit on his userpage, and officially signed off. I hope, however, that he will still read our discussions to see how we are doing, and might, just might, come back and edit again. I myself would like to thank him, except he won't respond. But I wish him good luck outside of Wikipedia, and hope whatever he is doing is worthwhile, From Imdanumber1 at WikiProject New York City Subway,...
-- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I, fortunately, won't be as busy as everyone else, because most of my contributions occur during weekday evenings and all times on weekends, since I am at school during the rest of the day, and sleeping at night. But with another gone contributor, I hope the WikiProject doesn't fall apart. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Last time, I made a proposal to make a new table, in order to make it reflect the table used at the MTA website. However, it was turned down, due to the verbosity and because of other issues that would make it undeemable for use. HOWEVER, I have made a few adjustments. I have uploaded some bullets that denote when trains run, called denotations, because it substitutes text. Marc Shepherd agreed with it. (By agreed, I mean beause he's no longer here, because he can't agree with it if he's no longer here.) Anyway, I have made countless numbers of changes and, well, see below.
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
This is the new table I created at my sandbox subpage. The table shows stations that are served by 5 trains. Notice I uploaded images of subway denotations that replaces text, so the table won't be verbose. I am also underway of creating a category for these denotations, which I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons (you can upload a bunch of stuff there).
I hope you like the table, and maybe, just maybe, we can agree on it. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The table above has been replaced with the svg-style, which makes it look better.
And also, since the MTA uses the blue one, WP:NYCS should too, as it is on MTA nomenclature. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that awkward. I don't think we should use side by side symbols; only one. Whichever symbol that sees more service than the other is the one that should be used. For example: the 5 train sees service during rush hours in the peak direction between 3rd Avenue and East 180th Street, but not during late nights. Same thing for the 4 train south of Utica Avenue. During rush hours in the peak direction, 4 trains see little service there, but more of it during late nights. One would be better than using two. But if it conflicts, say so below the table. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
MTA. But I saved them as images and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that. Since the subway bullets were probably uploaded from the MTA, and we haven't had trouble with those, then we might not have trouble using these denotation icons. The tag that says, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", are used with the subway bullets, as well as the denotation icons. So I think we are safe. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
So, I would like to get opinions on the table so it can meet everyone's requirements. Marc Shepherd likes it, and Pacific Coast Highway has some concerns to it as well. I am still working on some stuff. I want to get everyone's opinion on the table before I hold a consensus. For questions, just contact me. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly clear with the copyright (public domain, fair use, etc.) for images. They need licensing, or they will be deleted. I have licensing for these images so there is no need to delete them. Since these have licensing (PD), I am sure we should be fine.
That said, I am clear with copyright. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that we shouldn't slavishly imitate the MTA's table, but I am somewhat officializing it more. And what does " Wikipedia is not a timetable" have to do with this? That doesn't make sense.
Larry, from my last proposal, you said the table was too verbose. It isn't now, so what problems is it making now? Can you give me a more legitimate reason? If you have any thoughts, let me know. We can work this out. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...well, we haven't had any problem until now with this with the copyright, and until Larry came up with "Wikipedia is not a timetable". And I know that we shouldn't have to mimic their table, but making the table more robust would be a major improvement. It reduces the words, which makes the table clear, concise, less verbose, and for the most part, easy to use. The table currently seen on the subway service pages doesn't meet this table's requirements/standards, from my opinion. We use symbols to define when the stations are served by certain train routes. PCH made a great suggestion to use more than one symbol to combine when a station isn't served by the train route at certain times of the day. What I am saying is that, I am disagreeing with you Larry, what would make Wikipedia a timetable would be using a format seen in MTA's timetables (respectively) showing that during certain times of the day, there are a whole bunch of time listings that show when people should expect a train to reach their station. That said, the symbols have nothing to do with making Wikipedia a timetable, and that is what makes people miss the point. Using time listings that show when a station is served by a route would make Wikipedia a timetable; symbols are a whole different story. They replace text; I don't see anything big with using symbols instead of text. The late Marc Shepherd didn't see anything wrong with using symbols. He said that it makes a big difference and reduces the amount of words so people won't have to literally read the table. Some non-Wikipedians I know would actually go with it. Using a format of the MTA's table would make it familiar because if people ever use Wikipedia and put up a search for the NYCS services, they can easily recognize the table because the format is similar to the MTA's, where people that see the MTA's table also agree that it is easy to use. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs)
P.S. To make sure that there is no copyright issue with using the symbols, I will ask them to see if the images have any copyright issues behind them. It is only fair, and we can get copyrighting behind us so we can proceed. That said, the discussion should resume tomorrow, since the MTA takes a day to respong to queries.
Does that mean it will take longer on a weekend? Well, they DO reply, sooner than usual. Let's hope that they will let us use their images. Then we can proceed. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I created the SVG subway bullets. Fonts are not copyrightable, and adding a circle with a color around a letter is not enough to create authorship. These symbols are also so simple that they are probably public domain. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to commons, let me know. – flamurai ( t) 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's my version of the legend. (The all except late nights bullet is the wrong size because of the render bug.) If you know anything about how to implement show/hide in Mediawiki, let me know. –
flamurai (
t)
11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops late nights only |
![]() |
Stops late nights and weekends only |
![]() |
Stops weekdays during the day |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
An example showing only the items above (there's a little bug with the spacing... gotta look into that)
Station service legend | |
---|---|
![]() |
Stops all times |
![]() |
Stops all times except late nights |
![]() |
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction |
![]() |
Stops rush hours only |
![]() |
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only |
Time period details | |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act |
![]() |
Station is compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the indicated direction only |
![]() | |
![]() |
Elevator access to mezzanine only |
Usage:
{{User:Flamurai/NYCS icon legend | alltimes = | allexceptrush = | allexceptnights = | nightsonly = | nightsweekends = | weekdaysonly = | rushonly = | rushpeak = }} |
Good suggestion, Flamurai; This doesn't look bad at all! Keep up the good work!!! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone help me make a list of the hybrid icons we might need, such as the "all but nights and rush hours in peak dir" icon? – flamurai ( t) 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think we are getting somewhere now. I do have a sandbox subpage, and I have changed the new table there and added your new bullets. However, I would not endorse slicing half of the all except rush and all but night bullets and merge the two halves together. Pacific Coast Highway made a good suggestion to use more than one symbol. Besides, not all of the train lines have the same service pattern, which would make the merged one you proposed redundant, and less commonly used. The "symbol-under-symbol" configuration, that Pacific Coast Highway suggested, is what I would do. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also deleted the old table above and replaced it with the SVG-style bullets and legend. Good work, you couldn't put it any better, Flamurai. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We should also create templates so we can replace the image names with {{NYCS all times}} as seen on the table when one is editing it, and vice versa. I will work into this. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
When we create the templates for the icons (icons is a better name, instead of denotation), starting with "NYCS", should we use numbers ({{NYCS 18/7}} or ({{NYCS all day}}) to substitute "all times except late nights"? I'm neutral on it, but I want to see what you would decide on. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've created Template:User WP:NYCS. You can feel free to add it to your userpage. If you'd like, you can make any modifications to it if you want. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to the members of this WikiProject (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) for my recent inactivity on Wikipedia. I recently started my freshman year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an exceptionally large volume of schoolwork has severely restricted my available leisure time. I will try to return as I become accustomed to the academic program here. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad to have you back, Larry. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You just started college, Larry? The Legendary Ranger 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I support the usage of hex codes in the navigational box. I don't see why not. Pacific Coast Highway { Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
These are the colors I used for the bullets. They're based on the printed map (not the PDF map... those colors are not correct because of color space translation from CMYK to RGB). Colors are really inconsistent from sign to sign, from station to station, etc. – flamurai ( t) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Link: User:Flamurai/NYCS colors
I feel that we need to (yet again) come to an agreement to how we name stations. I have said this over and over, but I will repeat myself: THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL NAMES FOR ANY SUBWAY STATION. The reason I say this is because the map may interpret the name one way, but may write it differently on another part of the SAME map. And schedules tend to have thier own variant. And not to mention station signs that decide to come up with extended names.
Another part of this issue is that if we are to use these so-called official names on the map, then can someone explain how we are merging complexes together with some made up name, nowhere on the map, schedules, or on station signs? Paradox, anyone? Pacific Coast Highway { Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Any good reason not to add appropriate line colors to the NYCS line templates? Let me know. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: An example is changing B to B. Surely I see nothing wrong with that. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we oughta just leave the colors they way they are. Using colors that match their lines are very distracting and people will have a hard time finding thier lines. Also, the yellow color for the BMT Broadway Line is too light to see clearly. The Legendary Ranger 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll revert it. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's finally time that we have a consensus on the new subway table. It's been two months, and I think we are ready to decide its future. A lot of work has been put into it, making SVG icons (thanks to Flamurai), a new legend (thanks to Flamurai), to name a few. Therefore, I would like to thank Flamurai for reviving the table, because if it wasn't for him, I'd be stuck. I would also like to thank PCH, for minor (albeit helpful) ideas as well, since you two actually tried to help while others opposed it without trying to implement ideas. I really hope everyone votes support, however, since time and hard work definitely went into this. Voting ends Friday. Thanks!
Support
Resolution: As of Friday at midnight, Support has prevailed! I thank everyone for voting, and I hope everyone has had a Happy Thanksgiving. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If something is ever wrong, just say so, but no need to be pushy about it.
I sorta noticed that over time. People are aggressive, but things do need to get done. Also, there was a huge space between the bullets on the 5 page, but it wasn't there before. At least it's solved.
Also, that blue icon was terrible, since it's GIF and it rendered badly, so if we can create a SVG blue icon, that'd be great, otherwise, we'll stick with the regular one. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll add them on, if it is okay with PCH. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the blue icons. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Cyde brought it up originally, I was thinking if we should carry out the switch method he proposed. I noticed that we have a template called {{ NYCS}} that we can use for the subway services. We can create a template called {{NYCS line}} so it can be used for the lines. Using these, we can use the switch method, or something like that, which will create {{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 5 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}}. We could also do this for different line sections, creating {{NYCS line|Lexington}} producing 4, 5, 6, and <6>.
Then again, a lot of articles and the infobox will have to be edited and reconfigured, but it would be necessary to use the switch templates to reduce the overload of templates at the WP:NYCS category page. Thoughts? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, but using a switch template would reduce the "overload" so we won't have too many service templates. I tried to implement this at {{ NYCS}} but there are currently some issues that I am running into. For example, not all services use {{ NYCS Time}}, but I don't know how we can hide it from the lines that don't have it. I, for now, am stuck. However, I do want to put this into effect. What should I do? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a good idea to convert dozens of templates into one with a huge switch statement. What should be done, however, is converting all of the simple templates (like NYCS A, NYCS B, etc.) into a universal NYCS template that would look like {{NYCS|A}}, {{NYCS|B}}, etc., and could be done without a switch. -- Cyde Weys 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the {{ NYCS}} template covers all of the cases seen above.
This is only anecdotal, but this template could (possibly) replace the following templates if an agreement can be made:
That's my proposal. This is what I am with right now, which will make it easier to use, and therefore being able to get rid of the other 26 service templates if an agreement is made. (Spaking of NYCS templates, the cat page needs cleanup, as we have some templates unused...we gotta look into that.) -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |