![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Imdanumber1's suggestion reminded me of something. We have to be careful when we branch out into areas where we have not previously worked (e.g., LIRR). There are surely some hard-working editors who have put a lot of time and effort into these articles, and I don't think they'd appreciate it if we just barged in, declared that the articles are within our scope, and just start making changes as we see fit. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all at WP:NYCPT and to all a good night!!! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that we can create a wikitable for the subway services and subway lines? We have an infobox to sub the hard-code one, should we create a wikitable to sub the hard-code one? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible, but the template would be ridiculously complex. In the time spent writing and revising the template until it works flawlessly, one could instead finish inserting the tables for all the services—twice. There are only 26 or so articles that need this table, while most templates are used to insert content (usually much smaller than one of our tables) that is repeated over dozens and hundreds of articles. Even after the template was finished, there would have to be hundreds of arguments to specify every piece of information in the table: station names, service icons, accessibility status, transfers, and connections. Tables such as this are generally not made into templates; they're far too complicated and not ubiquitous enough. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In the G train article, it said that beginning in 2007, the G line will be extended to Church Avenue. I don't think we should include any future events because they can change without warning, even though right now we have proof. I think we should remove that until it happens. Do you agree or disagree? The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Reported by who? If there are no reliable sources, please remove it. -- NE2 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
some retard is vandalizing the R68 page again. I think we oughta protect that article. The Legendary Ranger 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to reduce unnecessary demand on the servers and make the article source easier to read, particularly for new users, please could members of this project substitute the simple linking templates.
For example {{ PATH}} produces just PATH. While this is obviously easier to type, there is no need for it to be transcluded, so please can you replace {{PATH}} with {{subst:PATH}} when editing and creating articles. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more details, including a list of bots what might be able to help. Thryduulf 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
<pre> just does this.Tinlinkin 09:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Often, the MTA labels the stations along 110th Street in Manhattan names such as "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street)" and "Central Park North (110th Street)". I object to the use of these forms in our articles because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the parentheses look awkward in the article titles (e.g., "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)"). I feel that the relevant articles should be named and referred to as follows:
This may be a fairly insignificant point, but I feel the need to hold some discussion on any matter of debate. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not it's relevant, but conductors definitely use the form Larry was refering to. I prefer the form he proposed above (possibly for that reason, maybe for other subconscious ones). alphachimp. 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Or we could simply make our own decisions about the names, as we have been (and should be) doing. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should create our own under construction tag in order to prevent other editors from editing our tables while we are expanding or revamping them. Any suggestions on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started tagging talk pages with importance ( Category:New York City public transportation articles by importance), and before I get too far I'd like to discuss how to decide how important something is. Here's my proposal:
-- NE2 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I agree with the method by which you are displaying the importance (i.e., Talk:New York City Subway). It sort of throws off the visual structure of the TrainsWikiProject template box with it's "secondary" colored box… it's hard to explain, easy if you see it. Surely there must be another way to indicate importance without using more colors, such as text saying "This article has _____ importance under WP:NYCPT" or something of that sort. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's a book that covers the history of the Manhattan streetcar lines from construction to abandonment, including details of which company built exactly which trackage?
For a much more specific question, the 1899 map shows that the main line of the Metropolitan Crosstown Railway ran to the (West) 14th Street Ferry. I can see the trackage along 13th, Greenwich, and Waverley, and it used trackage rights over the Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad on McDougal, but I have no idea how it went from McDougal to Spring, where it continued east. -- NE2 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently the article 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) was edited include a mention of Wesley Autrey, who on January 2, 2006, saved an epileptic who had fallen onto the tracks there. I'm not questioning whether Autrey's actions are worthy of mention, but I'm not entirely sure that this event is notable enough to be included here. Will it still be notable in the next six months, or the next year? Larry V ( talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, all right, but perhaps someone would be so kind as to clean up the mention at 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)? It reads fairly awkwardly and is not at all polished. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BWCNY recently changed the headers on list of bus routes in the Bronx and the other similar pages from "from"/"to" to "terminal A"/"terminal B". I reverted, since to me "terminal A" implies some sort of official designation by the MTA of that terminal as "A". However, the "from"/"to" could be misleading, implying it is a one-way trip. What do you think? -- NE2 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I made template:WPNYPT for talk pages of non-rail NYPT articles. -- NE2 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This template
Template:NYC simplebus has been used to link to bus routes, but on the depot page; I've been moving the lists to borough pages. Should we make a new template to link by borough and phase this one out? Should we make redirects from
M1 (New York City bus) or a similar form to the borough lists, or the former streetcar line where applicable? (A problem arises when a bus route was multiple lines.) --
NE2 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, whatever we decide, I should be able to semi-automate with AWB. -- NE2 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I like the idea of creating redirects - that way we totally automate it with a simple change of NYC simplebus once all the redirects are made. Any comments? -- NE2 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the deal, NE2: I put in a fairly large amount of work this summer adding bus lines with AWB. It took many hours to correlate individual bus lines, train stops, and depots...many hours that I'll never get back. You're welcome to change them to be on whatever you want, but realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work. I would encourage you to link the templates properly, but realize that any work in doing that is going to have to be entirely your own.
alphachimp 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I usually subscribe to that famous maxim ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") wholeheartedly, but in this case I am completely supportive of Alphachimp's reluctance to rework the bus structures. Frankly, he has been extremely modest when referring to the amount of effort he put into the bus templates (and related articles) over this past summer. "A fairly large amount of work" does not even begin to come close to describing the unholy amount of sheer bruntwork and mind-numbingly repetitive editing he did. No offense to you, NE2, but I'm not sure that anyone who was not part of WP:NYCS over the summer can fully comprehend the incredible magnitude of the contributions Alphachimp made; day after day, week after week, month after month, his name dominated my watchlist. If that had been me, I'd be a little more than hesitant about a complete overhaul. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For myself, in a mention of a bus route, I would first think about the bus routes in an entire borough. But links to the depot better reflect regional purposes. So either way is fine with me, though I am leaning toward the latter. It is painful to change a status quo, especially with one user's contributions, so the reason to change it must be compelling. I'd also like to know how other major transportation systems link their bus routes. Tinlinkin 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The depot list can stay, but the bus article should be renamed New York City Bus? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Move the main article to Buses in New York City. The existing article already descrives operations of NYCT, MaBSTOA and MTA Bus. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone is up to it, can you take a look at Subway Challenge and try to improve it? Thanks. Tinlinkin 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Since we don't use colors for subway services, which are colored in real life, we shouldn't use colors for buses ( [3]), which are only colored on the map. Does anyone oppose this, or should it be added to the WikiProject page under a "standards" section? -- NE2 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Using colors for links is generally tacky and unsightly. But even discounting personal opinions, it messes with people's preconceived notions of links. For the vast majority of people, links are blue. Period. You see blue text among a sea of black, it's a hyperlink. With the colors, that's not so readily apparent. Sure, one could just mouse over the letters and see for oneself—but that shouldn't be necessary. Differently-colored links, unless all links are the same color, smacks of bad web design and poor usability.
Can someone find a reliable source about the B110 bus listed on list of bus routes in Brooklyn? It's not on the MTA's site, and I can't find any such sources for the number, only for the fact that they operate. -- NE2 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I found a source for the number: [4] -- NE2 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I lived at the B110 bus stop, once. (Arril 1999 till NOvember 2000)I guess it is numbered so, because it share 49th/50th streets as well as many stops with B11. So I guess it renotes a version of B11 with a 0 extension. HOwever, it is entirely different form B11.
I dont know what do they use now. FLxibles are seen on other Jewish Routes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GK tramrunner ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Its a route from boro park to williamsburgh and back from williamsburgh to boro park jewish people use it mostly and it is a jewish company and boro park and williamsburgh are jewish neighborhoods
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1841 to 1902 has been scanned and placed online: [5] -- NE2 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I no longer think it is suitable to classify stations that have the New York City Subway prefix as complexes due to naming issues. I believe that we should now classify stations as either transfer-points or shared. See below:
Appropriate category names would be:
Category:New York City Subway transfer-points
and
Category:Shared New York City Subway stations
Any thoughts on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects of how the bus links could redirect to the line articles; there are only two with streetcar origins that don't have a clear target (and with the B23, those two short lines were once planned to connect, so they could logically be covered in one article). The new bus routes from B1 to B20 (and B31, formerly a branch of the B3, and B82, once the B5) were all introduced early by the BMT, and could easily be in one combined article detailing the BMT's early bus routes. That leaves only the B77, B83, B100, B103, and B110, which could redirect to the master list. -- NE2 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please correct me if I have it wrong, but as far as I can tell this is the real-world structure of the NYC-area bus system:
Now, assuming that the above is true, here are my suggestions:
Can I please get some comments? Thank you. -- NE2 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, how do you think it should be organized? Here's my impression of what you want:
Is that correct? My question then is where we should describe the naming/numbering system. -- NE2 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Should passenger equipment be mid or low importance? -- NE2 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points -- NE2 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you would make a comment in the future instead of maing a speedy cfd. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No one said no, PCH. I made a presentation, but a few people were misled. Only two people made a post, but thy were misled. I was trying to prove my point by creating the cats so peolewould undersand what I was trying to say. However, if I caused any discrepancy, I'm sorry. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article has been speedied, so the cfd has closed. But I will say what I have to say anyway:
To NE2: I do not think that tht was a good-faith nomination, IMO. You could have commented here first, and see what others had to say, instead of listing the CFD just like that.
To PCH: I was not going against consensus, if that is what you believed, I was simply trying to make a point to other people so they could undertand me better. Besides, you never posted a comment to begin with.
To Tinlinkin: If you wre going to say no, you could have just said so, or fully state why you diagreed.
To Larry: Because you didn't understand me, I thought I would show you what I was trying to say, because I alreay explained what I had in mind, I couldn't get clearer.
Per what I said, I apologize for any possible discrepancy I may have caused. But why would the category be esoteric? Why can't we have categories that show different types of complexes for the system? Subway stations, like Broadway Junction, shouldn't be in Category:New York City Subway stations. Why can't we have different categories to see what types of different station complexes? I'm a bit confused.... -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
One reason I disagree using a regular list instead of the category: we have to update the list evey time a new complex is merged. With the cat, there is no need to do that. Just add the cat to a page,and that's it. Are you guys sure we should do this with a list? If you guys ant to, I wouldn't object. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. They are ceating two as we speak: South Ferry and Fulton Street.
I never said that I didn't understand what you were suggesting, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. What I didn't understand was the purpose of the categorization. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Some users believe the name should be Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). I for one think that the name should be Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) because it is a shared station, and to disambig it from the Brooklyn station, we should use otheruses4 template. What should be done here? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's where checking out the talk archives would help in understanding. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, someone suggested using "New York City Subway" in article names. This idea was rejected because there are often multiple stations with the same name; other alternatives such as using divisions alone ("IND", "BMT", "IND") were rejected as being too vague. Here was born the custom of using line names. Later on, someone else came up with the idea of merging certain stations into single articles for complexes. Since no station articles used "New York City Subway" at this point, it was convenient to use that phrase in for these new station complex article names.
The point of this history lesson? Only this: The number one consideration should be to keep station article names clearly distinct from one another. Yes, "New York City Subway" should generally be used for stations with two or more lines. However, this guideline should always be superseded by the need for distinction in article names. If there were only one Seventh Avenue station, then sure, "Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway)" would be just fine; in fact, I wouldn't accept anything else. However, this is not the case; therefore, "New York City Subway" should not even be considered.
In addition, using Template:Otheruses4 should never be used in lieu of clear article names. Look at well-disambiguated sets of pages. Each has article names that are distinct by themselves, with parenthesized phrases to make the differentiation; the dab links serve only to remove any doubt. If one article does not differentiate its title, it is because it is almost always the intended subject for the phrase that makes up the title. Neither Seventh Avenue station is "well-known-enough" to claim a "top" spot here.
Now, some might say that "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)" is unclear, since it doesn't say anything about the Sixth Avenue Line. I agree, it's a little off, yes. However, the article makes it quite clear that both lines serve the station; more importantly, the two Seventh Avenue stations are made quite distinct. "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line)" is somewhat awkward; it suggests that it is on a line called the "Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line" (sort of like the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). Using one line in the name is the usual thing; so, which line would be best? Well, emergency exit signs at Seventh/53rd say "Queens Line", so we might as well use that one. The main idea is that we use one line.
Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what I find awkwrd? Why do stations along the IND Fulton say Eighth Avenue? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have a list in a subpage of this project documenting what the exit signs say on the various lines. -- NE2 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,... pretty funny, Larry. :D -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. We already refer to line names in the articles, I think. Cn you clarify? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We get most of our info from Station Reporter and nycsubway.org. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with that. There are very few MTA references that establish anything definitive about lines. And if you'll note, the page you referenced doesn't actually say that the Crosstown Line extends to Church Avenue; it merely says that their descriptions will start at Church. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
<del>
tags to strike the text through. (See
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable.)
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail) 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)See IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line for an example of citing the name and extent. -- NE2 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
To continue discussing about our sources, continue below. I too have some comments on that. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, back to sources. Well, I've got some suggestions. The nycsubway.org and Station Reporter sites are probably the best sorces for our info (check every page, most of it has these two sites as sources). The MTA works, too, because they have address and accessibility info too, but let's not get too specific. So anyway, what our main problem is original research. See information for the 5 service? They say some trains go to Gun Hill Road and run express. Some people may have seen this, but not everyone lives in New York, so we have to make sure this stays correct. And let's not forget those darn Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes, where vandals were getting misunderstood information from SubChat, formerly SubTalk, and created chaos all over the namespace. The bottom line is: Not everyone lives in New York, so they don't know as much as we do, but with a little help from online, everything will be a-okay. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In "Section V" (PDF). ("MTA Capital Program Information") of the MTA-Wide February Financial Plan for 2004–2007, there are references to both "74 St–Roosevelt Av" and "Roosevelt Av–74 St". So there's a reference for a combined name for the complex. I'd prefer "Roosevelt Avenue–74th Street", because the "Roosevelt Avenue" name is somewhat more important than "74th Street" (for instance, station signs to the complex usually say "Roosevelt Avenue Subway Station"). Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
…and others like it are not being used, and I think we came to a conclusion earlier that they don't fit into the project very well. So can I go ahead and delete them? Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I created List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City to place all the bus routes prefixed with "x" and with multiple boroughs on one page. Seems pretty simple, right? But the QBx1 is a local multi-borough bus; that's why I named the article "express and multi-borough bus routes". BWCNY and Sta2GUYZ don't seem to understand that; the former removed the QBx1 from the list and added it back to both the Queens and Bronx lists, and the latter made a copy-paste move to List of NYCTA, MaBSTOA, and MTA Bus express bus routes in New York City (which is a horrible name, especially since the list includes two subsidized routes not operated by the MTA). I'll probably have to stop soon because of the three-revert rule; I'd appreciate some help. (Do reverts of a copy-paste move count towards the 3RR?) -- NE2 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to
Slambo, we now have
Category:Unreferenced New York City public transportation articles,
Category:New York City public transportation articles needing maps, and
Category:New York City public transportation articles needing images. (The latter two are currently being populated at
Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing maps and
Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing images; I'd fix it but
template:TWP has been protected.) --
NE2 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We also have a bot-generated table:
New York City public transportation articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
![]() |
2 | 2 | |||||
![]() |
5 | 38 | 46 | 106 | 195 | ||
B | 15 | 13 | 35 | 63 | |||
C | 7 | 32 | 38 | 74 | 151 | ||
Start | 3 | 66 | 116 | 792 | 1 | 978 | |
Stub | 12 | 82 | 751 | 2 | 847 | ||
List | 20 | 18 | 10 | 1 | 49 | ||
Category | 215 | 215 | |||||
Disambig | 28 | 28 | |||||
File | 16 | 16 | |||||
Project | 33 | 33 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 15 | 380 | 396 | |||
Template | 603 | 603 | |||||
Other | 2 | 2 | |||||
Assessed | 15 | 184 | 314 | 1,787 | 1,278 | 3 | 3,581 |
Total | 15 | 184 | 314 | 1,787 | 1,278 | 3 | 3,581 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 11,155 | Ω = 4.99 |
-- NE2 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here have access to the full text in the New York Times archive (through your school or something)? -- NE2 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So apparently the Sixth Avenue Line has two prongs at the north end. -- NE2 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Try asking the question more clearly... such as "what is the name of the line that the 4 and 5 use under the East River?" Maybe throw in a historical reference, like "I know it was built as an extension of what is now the Lexington Avenue Line to Atlantic Avenue, but the line at Atlantic Avenue is now the Eastern Parkway Line; does the Eastern Parkway Line extend into Manhattan?" Here's the question I had success with:
-- NE2 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well this got me nowhere:
Who the hell do they have checking these e-mail services? Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting: [15] - in 1981 the MTA had Clark Street on the New Lots Line. The Second Avenue Subway SDEIS only clearly shows the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line going up to the Clark Street Tunnel, so maybe the Eastern Parkway Line splits in two and ends at both tunnels. -- NE2 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can you think of any cases in other fields we could consult - where something needs to be chosen for list purposes, but there is no well-defined choice? -- NE2 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've clarified the situation on IRT Eastern Parkway Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line, and IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. Any comments? -- NE2 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I created list of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn and have started writing about the bus routes in Brooklyn that did not replace streetcars. This means that there will be a target for every redirect on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects. I propose that we temporarily redirect the ones with no target yet to the main borough list, and use a template like Template:R with possibilities that will categorize these redirects into a special category, so we can more easily maintain the ones that redirect to lists. Template:NYC simplebus just needs to be changed to link to the redirect then. -- NE2 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on whether we should duplicate the entries for routes that enter more than one borough on multiple tables. -- NE2 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that any bus route that runs in a certain borough should be included in that borough's list, regardless of it's letter designation. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just got Steel Rails to the Sunrise through interlibrary loan, and it's due back on February 1. So I'm going to be working on improving Long Island Rail Road, hopefully to featured status, this coming week-and-a-half. -- NE2 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we have {{ NYCS time}} subst'ed on the Category:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation templates? The reason why I think so is that since {{ NYCS service}} is making this template obsolete, it should be substituted for line templates only, while articles that contain this template merged into the universal template, {{ NYCS service}}. What we also should do is have {{ NYCS}} converted to link to New York City Subway. Any suggestions on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good news! Transclusions for Template:NYCS 1 have been relinked to the universal template, {{ NYCS service}}. Does this mean that we can have Template:NYCS 1 listed for TfD? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent expansion of various bus affairs, I would like to put foward one suggestion: adding notes about service hours. Or at the least, noting which routes have overnight service. If we can go into having notes about history and routings, surely we can include service hours. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we include bus connections at rail stations if the literature published by either the rail company or the bus company shows a connection. This eliminates original research "oh, you can walk four blocks to this bus, but five blocks is too much" while inculding any transfers deemed useful by either company. Yea or nay? -- NE2 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, whatever is decided, remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I have a feeling that, in this particular case, such draconian demand for references will hurt Wikipedia rather than help. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road/archive1. Thank you. -- NE2 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I redirected this to template:NYCS service to make it easier to link to services; it's shorter to type {{NYCS|1}} than {{NYCS service|1}}. But Imdanumber1 changed template:NYCS to New York City Subway, which seems a waste of a template to me. Comments? -- NE2 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, several related (and also unused) templates are being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 25#Template:MNRR. -- NE2 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Imdanumber1, you cannot close the debate yourself. I see no admission by the nominator, NE2, that his nomination was mistaken. There was not a clear concensus, and the debate was barely open for a day. I'm reopening the debate. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'm concerned is why NE2 keeps nominating stuff for deletion. He did this with the transfer-point category while I was trying to prove something to you. But as I said, give a day to let other people give feedback. But I, myself, at least try to let people know about it first. Take my proposal for the line-switch template. As it was getting no success, I had it deleted. I could have speedied it if necessary. The point is, we shouldn't always have something deleted unless discussons can back up that the article or template or category isn't getting nowhere. Bottom line, we should keep the templates, and remember to sub them. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[[Independent Subway System|IND]]
every time we wanted to add a link to that article, we might reconsider doing so, thus making us less prone to saturate articles with links.I created {{ User WP:NYCPT}}, a userbox template. Feel free to add it to your userpages. Make any changes as you see fit. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this user needs to be blocked indefinetly. All his editings are being reverted because they are vandalism, unsourced, or unnecessary. The Legendary Ranger 12:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a few proposals for the {{ Infobox NYCS}}:
Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
line2
. This is for stations served by two lines in one station (e.g.,
Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets,
Jay Street–Borough Hall, the bi-level
West Fourth Street–Washington Square and
West Eighth Street–New York Aquarium, etc.). If a complex is served by more than two lines, it is likely composed of multiple stations and thus should have multiple infoboxes anyway. The only "single" station that I can think of that is served by more than two lines is
Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue, and even if there are more, there aren't enough to merit changing the infobox. Just add the raw table code.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail) 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Special:Contributions/66.65.48.106 -- NE2 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Again: User:D12795 -- NE2 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I fail to see the point of reverting him. He's adding unsourced material, but the articles are full of unsourced material, and if I were to remove it all, or even just the details of which car types are currently on which service (which I doubt can be sourced), you guys would lynch me. How is this any different? -- NE2 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...has been deleted. For the rest of templates that my bot fixed i will befixing some by hand, then have them deleted all at once. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting read:
Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.
Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].
Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page is seemingly thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything. It's inadvisable to worry about performance.
One area where it is preferable to fix redirected links is in series templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g. {{ US Presidents}} on George W. Bush). In this case, where the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), that link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
From Wikipedia:Redirect. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the NYCS template would look really nice with each line's symbol linked to the article, in place of just the letter or number. For example, clicking on an E or V train's symbol would take you to the respective article. I used the Click template to create the bullets for the talk page, but a separate template could be created if used. Note: I simply posted the code only because the template will not work here on the talk page. If you'd like to try it for yourself, paste the code into the Sandbox.
{{Click || image = NYCS-bull-trans-E.svg| link = E (New York City Subway service)| width = 20px| height = 20px}}
— Crashintome4196 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we placed this tag, {{ tprotected}} protected template or {{ sprotected }} semi-protected template on the R68 page... It's looks like this guy is really obsessed on that R68 car. Sta2GUYZ 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
While I was going around the rolling stock, I found that some articles had a table for car specifications and others didn't. I used a table someone else had and improved it a little. Perhaps we could use this as a standard of sorts:
Example from R160A:
Car Builder | Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil | |
Car Body | Pure stainless steel | |
Unit Numbers | 4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order) | |
Fleet size | 400 cars | |
Car dimensions | Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m) | |
Width: 10 feet (3.048 m) | ||
Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m) | ||
Track Gauge | 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m) | |
Maximum Operating Speed | ~65 MPH | |
Propulsion System | Alstom Onix AC Traction | |
Seating capacity | Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44 | |
Total capacity (seating plus standing) | Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132 | |
Cost per new car | USD$1,319,589 |
== Specifications == {| class="wikitable" |- |'''Car Builder''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Car Body''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Unit Numbers''' |colspan="2"| 4 Car Set: '''####''' and 5 Car Set: '''####''' (Primary Order) |- |'''Fleet size''' |colspan="2"| ### cars |- |'''Car dimensions''' |colspan="2"| '''Length:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'' '' |colspan="2"| '''Width:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'' '' |colspan="2"| '''Height:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'''Track Gauge''' |colspan="2"| feet, inches (meters) |- |'''Maximum Operating Speed''' |colspan="2"| ## MPH |- |'''Propulsion System''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Seating capacity''' |colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ## |- |'''Total capacity (seating plus standing)''' |colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ### |- |'''Cost per new car''' |colspan="2"| [[USD]]$ |- |}
Place this on main page of this WP? Herenthere (Talk) 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I created an infobox for LIRR stations and added it to Douglaston. What do you think? -- NE2 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How should the following LIRR station articles be named?
I have no preference as I see both used interchangeably, but the abbreviated version seems to be in widespread use. Tinlinkin 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[18] (linked from [19]) -- NE2 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a nag now, but this should be dealt with. Service changes and General Orders happen every week. There are some that screw up service for a while. And there are some that go away on Monday never to return. So here's my proposal: If it is not a long term service change, and by long term, meaning something lasting for a period of three months or more, it's is not notable. I call this the three month rule. I'm also bringing this to attention because of the media attention recieved by the disruption of 7 trains because of the new switch installation. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm back from wikibreak. I'll be removing the notice from my user page soon but I may not be editing as much, so hopefully I'll be back editing to regular levels in no time. Anyway, I see that NE2 has created a brand new infobox for the LIRR. Great work, NE2! I myself created an infobox for the MNRR using the same format, except for the MNRR, I bolded and italicized (is that a real word?) the station name. If any changes should be needed to any of the infobox(es), here are the links:
Anyway, its great to be back, and I'll be here for any concerns whenever. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
BMT 8 redirects to BMT Astoria Line and BMT 9 to IRT Flushing Line. Is this ideal behavior? -- NE2 12:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On Talk:S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) is a proposed move of S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to Franklin Avenue Shuttle and S – 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to 42nd Street Shuttle. -- NE2 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing to make separate articles - IND Division, IRT Division, and BMT Division - to discuss the current status of these and their history after 1940. The Independent Subway System, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation would cover the history before 1940, when the companies ceased to exist. -- NE2 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car) -- NE2 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line) is on the BMT Broadway Line if Lawrence Street–MetroTech and Court Street are on the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. -- NE2 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to whoever was involved. I've nominated another one - Myrtle Avenue Line (surface) - for Good Article status. -- NE2 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone is able to find
reliable sources for the rosters of and routes served by the bus depots, I'm going to do what I did with
Flatbush Depot and move the attributable information to
Bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)
Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. See
Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Advice requested. --
NE2 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Syosset (LIRR station) is one of the articles posted for {{ Did you know}} and is shown on the Main Page. I didn't expect little old me could write an interesting article. If an interesting fact pops up from a new article in this group I'll nominate it, or better yet, you should nominate it. Tinlinkin 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that since we have fixed all transclusions to link to the master template, NYCS, I guess now we can start nominating all the service-specific templates (the line templates will stay, as per a past discussion). Shall I go ahead and start the Tfds? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that we still haven't finished our discussion on what the suffix for the Seventh Avenue station should be. Although emergency exit signs say IND Queens Blvd line, the problem is that the station is shared with 6 Av. trains as well. The southern portion is chained as such, and there is no physical track connections east or west of that station. This matter also implies with Dekalb Avenue, the one located under Flatbush Avenue and the other underneath Wyckoff. Why would Dekalb/Flatbush be a part of the Broadway Line (although they are served by Broadway trains) when the other stations are located a part of the 4th Av. line and Brighton line?
Suggestions:
Move DeKalb Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to DeKalb Avenue (New York City Subway): Although NE2 moved the article already, the station is shared by two lines as indicated by chaining. The past name conflicted with the other station names because the other stations going north and south were part of a different line. How could DeKalb Avenue be apart of the Broadway line while the trunk line is located in Manhattan?
Move Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) to Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway): See above.
Canal Street in Chinatown has the same issue, or close. Just add the disambig template, otheruses4. I know we shouldn't rely on it too much or go in overkill mode with it, but it's there when necessary, and for these cases, we will need them. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not about the classification of shared-line stations (DeKalb & Flatbush, 7th Avenue & 53rd Street, etc.), but the station articles as a primary topic and Wikipedia naming conventions. As I said, {{ otheruses4}} is used for disambiguation when the article that the template is used in is the primary topic or the parent of a group of articles (emphasized for the basis of my argument). A page like 96th Street (New York City Subway) has no problems being a disambig page as each station can be considered as a target for the reader, and there is no hierarchy of importance. But if, say, Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) takes on the contents of Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), even if {{ otheruses4}} is used, we are forced to assume that the 7th/53rd station is more important or notable than the others. I doubt that is the case. I would strictly oppose a move and others similar on this basis.
I noticed that you moved 50th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) to 50th Street (New York City Subway) (which was reverted). With that move, we are forced to assume the 8th Avenue station is somehow more notable than the 7th (or maybe the 6th). That is a bad judgment. The chaining issues remain, but do all sides need be addressed in the article name? I'm leaning towards no. The location and orientation of a station (foremost) along with which is the primary service should determine the article name, in my opinion for these cases. I also disagree with the current state of Canal Street (New York City Subway). I hope there is a better name for the Canal Street Broadway/Lexington/Nassau complex. If there is not, then I may settle on the Canal Street complex as the more notable than the 2 other stations and support the current arrangement. I still need to examine other examples like that. Do we accommodate all information on chaining in an article name? If that accommodation is made using (New York City Subway) as part of the name, I cannot agree with that.
I'm sorry I cannot be briefer with my explanation above. Tinlinkin 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I make a second "simplified" set of these templates, where the time information isn't included? For instance, then you can link to the services in Ocean Hill, Brooklyn using the templates, but without the unnecessary time data. Also, are there any suggestions for naming? Would it even be best to use the current naming for the simplified ones, and move the current ones to something like Template:NYCS Lexington local time? Probably all the uses that need the time are in the infoboxes, and there the code can be changed to call the time templates. -- NE2 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And then what happens if they bring back the 9? Or truncate the Z to Myrtle Avenue? Or - for something that's actually planned - extend the G? The idea of the templates is to make other articles that talk about the lines update automatically. -- NE2 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to change redirects like Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to point to Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway)#BMT Fourth Avenue Line rather than Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway). But some articles include "platforms" in the section title; should we standardize them with or without the word? -- NE2 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn. My favourite subway cars are R40, R40M and R42. I'd wish for an incomming stock (next order after R160ies) to resemble R40ies, and R42s.
GK tramrunner 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the service history info was removed for copyright issues. I want that information to be put back in the article, but written in our own words. I will be adding some info of my own, but I can't do it alone. I need your help. Please find whatever information you can about each individual subway line's service history and add it on the article. Thank You. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As of me, they are the part of my everyday American Life. Today, it is 15 years as I live in USA. My first two appartmens (since April 1992) were in along the West End Line. That time, it was served by a route B, which used R40ies, until April 1997. R68s entered B line R40ies went on Q.
being replaced by R160ies. Butafter the complete arrival of R160ies there will be new fleet ordered. So: make the new fleet look like R40ies!!!!!
GK tramrunner 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the service links are no longer in bold. Is there a reason why they can't be bold? Or why they shouldnt? Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles: "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)." and "Avoid other uses of boldface in the first paragraph, so the reader will not confuse the text with synonyms." B Division looks fine without bold. -- NE2 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
From some sources I've read that they will be replaced by newer cars, which will look the the R143/R160 NYC Subway standard.
PATH cars are favourite to me and to many railways. As of me, they get along with the
Never let them go. In case they will need to be gone, retain some museum copies for:
PATH cars reserve respect, as R40ies. I hope, they will not retire soon! GK tramrunner 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion at Template talk:NYCS. -- NE2 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing the deletion of {{ NYC acc navbox}}, a navigation template for the handicapped accessibility of the NYC transit systems at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 23#Template:NYC acc navbox. Tinlinkin 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to merge New York City Subway accessibility into List of New York City Subway stations. The merge tag has appeared for a couple days now. But as I was looking at the WP:NYCPT home page again, I noticed the blurb about accessibility. This propmpted me to post a message here for broader discussion, just to be sure of consensus.
Along with the merge, I would like to make
List of New York City Subway stations into a
sortable table. The table will have the following columns: "Station",
, "Line(s)", and "Service(s)". It would also be a good opportunity to demonstrate all the templates at
Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines. I don't think the services will be too much. I'd like to know if the time periods should be included, along with any other concerns to this conversion. I hope to start within a few days.
Tinlinkin 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in New York City', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single 'Streets and Squares' category. I've also let the Wikiproject New York know. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. -- Keefer4 | Talk 01:58, 31 March 2007 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Imdanumber1's suggestion reminded me of something. We have to be careful when we branch out into areas where we have not previously worked (e.g., LIRR). There are surely some hard-working editors who have put a lot of time and effort into these articles, and I don't think they'd appreciate it if we just barged in, declared that the articles are within our scope, and just start making changes as we see fit. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all at WP:NYCPT and to all a good night!!! -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that we can create a wikitable for the subway services and subway lines? We have an infobox to sub the hard-code one, should we create a wikitable to sub the hard-code one? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible, but the template would be ridiculously complex. In the time spent writing and revising the template until it works flawlessly, one could instead finish inserting the tables for all the services—twice. There are only 26 or so articles that need this table, while most templates are used to insert content (usually much smaller than one of our tables) that is repeated over dozens and hundreds of articles. Even after the template was finished, there would have to be hundreds of arguments to specify every piece of information in the table: station names, service icons, accessibility status, transfers, and connections. Tables such as this are generally not made into templates; they're far too complicated and not ubiquitous enough. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In the G train article, it said that beginning in 2007, the G line will be extended to Church Avenue. I don't think we should include any future events because they can change without warning, even though right now we have proof. I think we should remove that until it happens. Do you agree or disagree? The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Reported by who? If there are no reliable sources, please remove it. -- NE2 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
some retard is vandalizing the R68 page again. I think we oughta protect that article. The Legendary Ranger 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to reduce unnecessary demand on the servers and make the article source easier to read, particularly for new users, please could members of this project substitute the simple linking templates.
For example {{ PATH}} produces just PATH. While this is obviously easier to type, there is no need for it to be transcluded, so please can you replace {{PATH}} with {{subst:PATH}} when editing and creating articles. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more details, including a list of bots what might be able to help. Thryduulf 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
<pre> just does this.Tinlinkin 09:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Often, the MTA labels the stations along 110th Street in Manhattan names such as "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street)" and "Central Park North (110th Street)". I object to the use of these forms in our articles because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the parentheses look awkward in the article titles (e.g., "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)"). I feel that the relevant articles should be named and referred to as follows:
This may be a fairly insignificant point, but I feel the need to hold some discussion on any matter of debate. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not it's relevant, but conductors definitely use the form Larry was refering to. I prefer the form he proposed above (possibly for that reason, maybe for other subconscious ones). alphachimp. 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Or we could simply make our own decisions about the names, as we have been (and should be) doing. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should create our own under construction tag in order to prevent other editors from editing our tables while we are expanding or revamping them. Any suggestions on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started tagging talk pages with importance ( Category:New York City public transportation articles by importance), and before I get too far I'd like to discuss how to decide how important something is. Here's my proposal:
-- NE2 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I agree with the method by which you are displaying the importance (i.e., Talk:New York City Subway). It sort of throws off the visual structure of the TrainsWikiProject template box with it's "secondary" colored box… it's hard to explain, easy if you see it. Surely there must be another way to indicate importance without using more colors, such as text saying "This article has _____ importance under WP:NYCPT" or something of that sort. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's a book that covers the history of the Manhattan streetcar lines from construction to abandonment, including details of which company built exactly which trackage?
For a much more specific question, the 1899 map shows that the main line of the Metropolitan Crosstown Railway ran to the (West) 14th Street Ferry. I can see the trackage along 13th, Greenwich, and Waverley, and it used trackage rights over the Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad on McDougal, but I have no idea how it went from McDougal to Spring, where it continued east. -- NE2 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently the article 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) was edited include a mention of Wesley Autrey, who on January 2, 2006, saved an epileptic who had fallen onto the tracks there. I'm not questioning whether Autrey's actions are worthy of mention, but I'm not entirely sure that this event is notable enough to be included here. Will it still be notable in the next six months, or the next year? Larry V ( talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, all right, but perhaps someone would be so kind as to clean up the mention at 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)? It reads fairly awkwardly and is not at all polished. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BWCNY recently changed the headers on list of bus routes in the Bronx and the other similar pages from "from"/"to" to "terminal A"/"terminal B". I reverted, since to me "terminal A" implies some sort of official designation by the MTA of that terminal as "A". However, the "from"/"to" could be misleading, implying it is a one-way trip. What do you think? -- NE2 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I made template:WPNYPT for talk pages of non-rail NYPT articles. -- NE2 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This template
Template:NYC simplebus has been used to link to bus routes, but on the depot page; I've been moving the lists to borough pages. Should we make a new template to link by borough and phase this one out? Should we make redirects from
M1 (New York City bus) or a similar form to the borough lists, or the former streetcar line where applicable? (A problem arises when a bus route was multiple lines.) --
NE2 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, whatever we decide, I should be able to semi-automate with AWB. -- NE2 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I like the idea of creating redirects - that way we totally automate it with a simple change of NYC simplebus once all the redirects are made. Any comments? -- NE2 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the deal, NE2: I put in a fairly large amount of work this summer adding bus lines with AWB. It took many hours to correlate individual bus lines, train stops, and depots...many hours that I'll never get back. You're welcome to change them to be on whatever you want, but realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work. I would encourage you to link the templates properly, but realize that any work in doing that is going to have to be entirely your own.
alphachimp 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I usually subscribe to that famous maxim ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") wholeheartedly, but in this case I am completely supportive of Alphachimp's reluctance to rework the bus structures. Frankly, he has been extremely modest when referring to the amount of effort he put into the bus templates (and related articles) over this past summer. "A fairly large amount of work" does not even begin to come close to describing the unholy amount of sheer bruntwork and mind-numbingly repetitive editing he did. No offense to you, NE2, but I'm not sure that anyone who was not part of WP:NYCS over the summer can fully comprehend the incredible magnitude of the contributions Alphachimp made; day after day, week after week, month after month, his name dominated my watchlist. If that had been me, I'd be a little more than hesitant about a complete overhaul. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For myself, in a mention of a bus route, I would first think about the bus routes in an entire borough. But links to the depot better reflect regional purposes. So either way is fine with me, though I am leaning toward the latter. It is painful to change a status quo, especially with one user's contributions, so the reason to change it must be compelling. I'd also like to know how other major transportation systems link their bus routes. Tinlinkin 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The depot list can stay, but the bus article should be renamed New York City Bus? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Move the main article to Buses in New York City. The existing article already descrives operations of NYCT, MaBSTOA and MTA Bus. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone is up to it, can you take a look at Subway Challenge and try to improve it? Thanks. Tinlinkin 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Since we don't use colors for subway services, which are colored in real life, we shouldn't use colors for buses ( [3]), which are only colored on the map. Does anyone oppose this, or should it be added to the WikiProject page under a "standards" section? -- NE2 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Using colors for links is generally tacky and unsightly. But even discounting personal opinions, it messes with people's preconceived notions of links. For the vast majority of people, links are blue. Period. You see blue text among a sea of black, it's a hyperlink. With the colors, that's not so readily apparent. Sure, one could just mouse over the letters and see for oneself—but that shouldn't be necessary. Differently-colored links, unless all links are the same color, smacks of bad web design and poor usability.
Can someone find a reliable source about the B110 bus listed on list of bus routes in Brooklyn? It's not on the MTA's site, and I can't find any such sources for the number, only for the fact that they operate. -- NE2 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I found a source for the number: [4] -- NE2 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I lived at the B110 bus stop, once. (Arril 1999 till NOvember 2000)I guess it is numbered so, because it share 49th/50th streets as well as many stops with B11. So I guess it renotes a version of B11 with a 0 extension. HOwever, it is entirely different form B11.
I dont know what do they use now. FLxibles are seen on other Jewish Routes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GK tramrunner ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Its a route from boro park to williamsburgh and back from williamsburgh to boro park jewish people use it mostly and it is a jewish company and boro park and williamsburgh are jewish neighborhoods
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1841 to 1902 has been scanned and placed online: [5] -- NE2 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I no longer think it is suitable to classify stations that have the New York City Subway prefix as complexes due to naming issues. I believe that we should now classify stations as either transfer-points or shared. See below:
Appropriate category names would be:
Category:New York City Subway transfer-points
and
Category:Shared New York City Subway stations
Any thoughts on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects of how the bus links could redirect to the line articles; there are only two with streetcar origins that don't have a clear target (and with the B23, those two short lines were once planned to connect, so they could logically be covered in one article). The new bus routes from B1 to B20 (and B31, formerly a branch of the B3, and B82, once the B5) were all introduced early by the BMT, and could easily be in one combined article detailing the BMT's early bus routes. That leaves only the B77, B83, B100, B103, and B110, which could redirect to the master list. -- NE2 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please correct me if I have it wrong, but as far as I can tell this is the real-world structure of the NYC-area bus system:
Now, assuming that the above is true, here are my suggestions:
Can I please get some comments? Thank you. -- NE2 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, how do you think it should be organized? Here's my impression of what you want:
Is that correct? My question then is where we should describe the naming/numbering system. -- NE2 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Should passenger equipment be mid or low importance? -- NE2 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points -- NE2 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you would make a comment in the future instead of maing a speedy cfd. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No one said no, PCH. I made a presentation, but a few people were misled. Only two people made a post, but thy were misled. I was trying to prove my point by creating the cats so peolewould undersand what I was trying to say. However, if I caused any discrepancy, I'm sorry. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article has been speedied, so the cfd has closed. But I will say what I have to say anyway:
To NE2: I do not think that tht was a good-faith nomination, IMO. You could have commented here first, and see what others had to say, instead of listing the CFD just like that.
To PCH: I was not going against consensus, if that is what you believed, I was simply trying to make a point to other people so they could undertand me better. Besides, you never posted a comment to begin with.
To Tinlinkin: If you wre going to say no, you could have just said so, or fully state why you diagreed.
To Larry: Because you didn't understand me, I thought I would show you what I was trying to say, because I alreay explained what I had in mind, I couldn't get clearer.
Per what I said, I apologize for any possible discrepancy I may have caused. But why would the category be esoteric? Why can't we have categories that show different types of complexes for the system? Subway stations, like Broadway Junction, shouldn't be in Category:New York City Subway stations. Why can't we have different categories to see what types of different station complexes? I'm a bit confused.... -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
One reason I disagree using a regular list instead of the category: we have to update the list evey time a new complex is merged. With the cat, there is no need to do that. Just add the cat to a page,and that's it. Are you guys sure we should do this with a list? If you guys ant to, I wouldn't object. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. They are ceating two as we speak: South Ferry and Fulton Street.
I never said that I didn't understand what you were suggesting, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. What I didn't understand was the purpose of the categorization. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Some users believe the name should be Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). I for one think that the name should be Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) because it is a shared station, and to disambig it from the Brooklyn station, we should use otheruses4 template. What should be done here? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's where checking out the talk archives would help in understanding. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, someone suggested using "New York City Subway" in article names. This idea was rejected because there are often multiple stations with the same name; other alternatives such as using divisions alone ("IND", "BMT", "IND") were rejected as being too vague. Here was born the custom of using line names. Later on, someone else came up with the idea of merging certain stations into single articles for complexes. Since no station articles used "New York City Subway" at this point, it was convenient to use that phrase in for these new station complex article names.
The point of this history lesson? Only this: The number one consideration should be to keep station article names clearly distinct from one another. Yes, "New York City Subway" should generally be used for stations with two or more lines. However, this guideline should always be superseded by the need for distinction in article names. If there were only one Seventh Avenue station, then sure, "Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway)" would be just fine; in fact, I wouldn't accept anything else. However, this is not the case; therefore, "New York City Subway" should not even be considered.
In addition, using Template:Otheruses4 should never be used in lieu of clear article names. Look at well-disambiguated sets of pages. Each has article names that are distinct by themselves, with parenthesized phrases to make the differentiation; the dab links serve only to remove any doubt. If one article does not differentiate its title, it is because it is almost always the intended subject for the phrase that makes up the title. Neither Seventh Avenue station is "well-known-enough" to claim a "top" spot here.
Now, some might say that "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)" is unclear, since it doesn't say anything about the Sixth Avenue Line. I agree, it's a little off, yes. However, the article makes it quite clear that both lines serve the station; more importantly, the two Seventh Avenue stations are made quite distinct. "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line)" is somewhat awkward; it suggests that it is on a line called the "Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line" (sort of like the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). Using one line in the name is the usual thing; so, which line would be best? Well, emergency exit signs at Seventh/53rd say "Queens Line", so we might as well use that one. The main idea is that we use one line.
Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what I find awkwrd? Why do stations along the IND Fulton say Eighth Avenue? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have a list in a subpage of this project documenting what the exit signs say on the various lines. -- NE2 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,... pretty funny, Larry. :D -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. We already refer to line names in the articles, I think. Cn you clarify? -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We get most of our info from Station Reporter and nycsubway.org. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with that. There are very few MTA references that establish anything definitive about lines. And if you'll note, the page you referenced doesn't actually say that the Crosstown Line extends to Church Avenue; it merely says that their descriptions will start at Church. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
<del>
tags to strike the text through. (See
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable.)
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail) 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)See IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line for an example of citing the name and extent. -- NE2 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
To continue discussing about our sources, continue below. I too have some comments on that. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, back to sources. Well, I've got some suggestions. The nycsubway.org and Station Reporter sites are probably the best sorces for our info (check every page, most of it has these two sites as sources). The MTA works, too, because they have address and accessibility info too, but let's not get too specific. So anyway, what our main problem is original research. See information for the 5 service? They say some trains go to Gun Hill Road and run express. Some people may have seen this, but not everyone lives in New York, so we have to make sure this stays correct. And let's not forget those darn Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes, where vandals were getting misunderstood information from SubChat, formerly SubTalk, and created chaos all over the namespace. The bottom line is: Not everyone lives in New York, so they don't know as much as we do, but with a little help from online, everything will be a-okay. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In "Section V" (PDF). ("MTA Capital Program Information") of the MTA-Wide February Financial Plan for 2004–2007, there are references to both "74 St–Roosevelt Av" and "Roosevelt Av–74 St". So there's a reference for a combined name for the complex. I'd prefer "Roosevelt Avenue–74th Street", because the "Roosevelt Avenue" name is somewhat more important than "74th Street" (for instance, station signs to the complex usually say "Roosevelt Avenue Subway Station"). Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
…and others like it are not being used, and I think we came to a conclusion earlier that they don't fit into the project very well. So can I go ahead and delete them? Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I created List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City to place all the bus routes prefixed with "x" and with multiple boroughs on one page. Seems pretty simple, right? But the QBx1 is a local multi-borough bus; that's why I named the article "express and multi-borough bus routes". BWCNY and Sta2GUYZ don't seem to understand that; the former removed the QBx1 from the list and added it back to both the Queens and Bronx lists, and the latter made a copy-paste move to List of NYCTA, MaBSTOA, and MTA Bus express bus routes in New York City (which is a horrible name, especially since the list includes two subsidized routes not operated by the MTA). I'll probably have to stop soon because of the three-revert rule; I'd appreciate some help. (Do reverts of a copy-paste move count towards the 3RR?) -- NE2 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to
Slambo, we now have
Category:Unreferenced New York City public transportation articles,
Category:New York City public transportation articles needing maps, and
Category:New York City public transportation articles needing images. (The latter two are currently being populated at
Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing maps and
Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing images; I'd fix it but
template:TWP has been protected.) --
NE2 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We also have a bot-generated table:
New York City public transportation articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
![]() |
2 | 2 | |||||
![]() |
5 | 38 | 46 | 106 | 195 | ||
B | 15 | 13 | 35 | 63 | |||
C | 7 | 32 | 38 | 74 | 151 | ||
Start | 3 | 66 | 116 | 792 | 1 | 978 | |
Stub | 12 | 82 | 751 | 2 | 847 | ||
List | 20 | 18 | 10 | 1 | 49 | ||
Category | 215 | 215 | |||||
Disambig | 28 | 28 | |||||
File | 16 | 16 | |||||
Project | 33 | 33 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 15 | 380 | 396 | |||
Template | 603 | 603 | |||||
Other | 2 | 2 | |||||
Assessed | 15 | 184 | 314 | 1,787 | 1,278 | 3 | 3,581 |
Total | 15 | 184 | 314 | 1,787 | 1,278 | 3 | 3,581 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 11,155 | Ω = 4.99 |
-- NE2 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here have access to the full text in the New York Times archive (through your school or something)? -- NE2 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So apparently the Sixth Avenue Line has two prongs at the north end. -- NE2 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Try asking the question more clearly... such as "what is the name of the line that the 4 and 5 use under the East River?" Maybe throw in a historical reference, like "I know it was built as an extension of what is now the Lexington Avenue Line to Atlantic Avenue, but the line at Atlantic Avenue is now the Eastern Parkway Line; does the Eastern Parkway Line extend into Manhattan?" Here's the question I had success with:
-- NE2 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well this got me nowhere:
Who the hell do they have checking these e-mail services? Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting: [15] - in 1981 the MTA had Clark Street on the New Lots Line. The Second Avenue Subway SDEIS only clearly shows the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line going up to the Clark Street Tunnel, so maybe the Eastern Parkway Line splits in two and ends at both tunnels. -- NE2 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can you think of any cases in other fields we could consult - where something needs to be chosen for list purposes, but there is no well-defined choice? -- NE2 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've clarified the situation on IRT Eastern Parkway Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line, and IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. Any comments? -- NE2 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I created list of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn and have started writing about the bus routes in Brooklyn that did not replace streetcars. This means that there will be a target for every redirect on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects. I propose that we temporarily redirect the ones with no target yet to the main borough list, and use a template like Template:R with possibilities that will categorize these redirects into a special category, so we can more easily maintain the ones that redirect to lists. Template:NYC simplebus just needs to be changed to link to the redirect then. -- NE2 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on whether we should duplicate the entries for routes that enter more than one borough on multiple tables. -- NE2 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that any bus route that runs in a certain borough should be included in that borough's list, regardless of it's letter designation. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just got Steel Rails to the Sunrise through interlibrary loan, and it's due back on February 1. So I'm going to be working on improving Long Island Rail Road, hopefully to featured status, this coming week-and-a-half. -- NE2 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we have {{ NYCS time}} subst'ed on the Category:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation templates? The reason why I think so is that since {{ NYCS service}} is making this template obsolete, it should be substituted for line templates only, while articles that contain this template merged into the universal template, {{ NYCS service}}. What we also should do is have {{ NYCS}} converted to link to New York City Subway. Any suggestions on this? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good news! Transclusions for Template:NYCS 1 have been relinked to the universal template, {{ NYCS service}}. Does this mean that we can have Template:NYCS 1 listed for TfD? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent expansion of various bus affairs, I would like to put foward one suggestion: adding notes about service hours. Or at the least, noting which routes have overnight service. If we can go into having notes about history and routings, surely we can include service hours. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we include bus connections at rail stations if the literature published by either the rail company or the bus company shows a connection. This eliminates original research "oh, you can walk four blocks to this bus, but five blocks is too much" while inculding any transfers deemed useful by either company. Yea or nay? -- NE2 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, whatever is decided, remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I have a feeling that, in this particular case, such draconian demand for references will hurt Wikipedia rather than help. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road/archive1. Thank you. -- NE2 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I redirected this to template:NYCS service to make it easier to link to services; it's shorter to type {{NYCS|1}} than {{NYCS service|1}}. But Imdanumber1 changed template:NYCS to New York City Subway, which seems a waste of a template to me. Comments? -- NE2 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, several related (and also unused) templates are being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 25#Template:MNRR. -- NE2 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Imdanumber1, you cannot close the debate yourself. I see no admission by the nominator, NE2, that his nomination was mistaken. There was not a clear concensus, and the debate was barely open for a day. I'm reopening the debate. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'm concerned is why NE2 keeps nominating stuff for deletion. He did this with the transfer-point category while I was trying to prove something to you. But as I said, give a day to let other people give feedback. But I, myself, at least try to let people know about it first. Take my proposal for the line-switch template. As it was getting no success, I had it deleted. I could have speedied it if necessary. The point is, we shouldn't always have something deleted unless discussons can back up that the article or template or category isn't getting nowhere. Bottom line, we should keep the templates, and remember to sub them. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[[Independent Subway System|IND]]
every time we wanted to add a link to that article, we might reconsider doing so, thus making us less prone to saturate articles with links.I created {{ User WP:NYCPT}}, a userbox template. Feel free to add it to your userpages. Make any changes as you see fit. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this user needs to be blocked indefinetly. All his editings are being reverted because they are vandalism, unsourced, or unnecessary. The Legendary Ranger 12:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a few proposals for the {{ Infobox NYCS}}:
Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
line2
. This is for stations served by two lines in one station (e.g.,
Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets,
Jay Street–Borough Hall, the bi-level
West Fourth Street–Washington Square and
West Eighth Street–New York Aquarium, etc.). If a complex is served by more than two lines, it is likely composed of multiple stations and thus should have multiple infoboxes anyway. The only "single" station that I can think of that is served by more than two lines is
Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue, and even if there are more, there aren't enough to merit changing the infobox. Just add the raw table code.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail) 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Special:Contributions/66.65.48.106 -- NE2 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Again: User:D12795 -- NE2 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I fail to see the point of reverting him. He's adding unsourced material, but the articles are full of unsourced material, and if I were to remove it all, or even just the details of which car types are currently on which service (which I doubt can be sourced), you guys would lynch me. How is this any different? -- NE2 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...has been deleted. For the rest of templates that my bot fixed i will befixing some by hand, then have them deleted all at once. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting read:
Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.
Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].
Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page is seemingly thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything. It's inadvisable to worry about performance.
One area where it is preferable to fix redirected links is in series templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g. {{ US Presidents}} on George W. Bush). In this case, where the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), that link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
From Wikipedia:Redirect. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the NYCS template would look really nice with each line's symbol linked to the article, in place of just the letter or number. For example, clicking on an E or V train's symbol would take you to the respective article. I used the Click template to create the bullets for the talk page, but a separate template could be created if used. Note: I simply posted the code only because the template will not work here on the talk page. If you'd like to try it for yourself, paste the code into the Sandbox.
{{Click || image = NYCS-bull-trans-E.svg| link = E (New York City Subway service)| width = 20px| height = 20px}}
— Crashintome4196 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we placed this tag, {{ tprotected}} protected template or {{ sprotected }} semi-protected template on the R68 page... It's looks like this guy is really obsessed on that R68 car. Sta2GUYZ 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
While I was going around the rolling stock, I found that some articles had a table for car specifications and others didn't. I used a table someone else had and improved it a little. Perhaps we could use this as a standard of sorts:
Example from R160A:
Car Builder | Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil | |
Car Body | Pure stainless steel | |
Unit Numbers | 4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order) | |
Fleet size | 400 cars | |
Car dimensions | Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m) | |
Width: 10 feet (3.048 m) | ||
Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m) | ||
Track Gauge | 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m) | |
Maximum Operating Speed | ~65 MPH | |
Propulsion System | Alstom Onix AC Traction | |
Seating capacity | Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44 | |
Total capacity (seating plus standing) | Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132 | |
Cost per new car | USD$1,319,589 |
== Specifications == {| class="wikitable" |- |'''Car Builder''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Car Body''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Unit Numbers''' |colspan="2"| 4 Car Set: '''####''' and 5 Car Set: '''####''' (Primary Order) |- |'''Fleet size''' |colspan="2"| ### cars |- |'''Car dimensions''' |colspan="2"| '''Length:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'' '' |colspan="2"| '''Width:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'' '' |colspan="2"| '''Height:''' feet, inches (meters) |- |'''Track Gauge''' |colspan="2"| feet, inches (meters) |- |'''Maximum Operating Speed''' |colspan="2"| ## MPH |- |'''Propulsion System''' |colspan="2"| |- |'''Seating capacity''' |colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ## |- |'''Total capacity (seating plus standing)''' |colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ### |- |'''Cost per new car''' |colspan="2"| [[USD]]$ |- |}
Place this on main page of this WP? Herenthere (Talk) 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I created an infobox for LIRR stations and added it to Douglaston. What do you think? -- NE2 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How should the following LIRR station articles be named?
I have no preference as I see both used interchangeably, but the abbreviated version seems to be in widespread use. Tinlinkin 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[18] (linked from [19]) -- NE2 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a nag now, but this should be dealt with. Service changes and General Orders happen every week. There are some that screw up service for a while. And there are some that go away on Monday never to return. So here's my proposal: If it is not a long term service change, and by long term, meaning something lasting for a period of three months or more, it's is not notable. I call this the three month rule. I'm also bringing this to attention because of the media attention recieved by the disruption of 7 trains because of the new switch installation. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm back from wikibreak. I'll be removing the notice from my user page soon but I may not be editing as much, so hopefully I'll be back editing to regular levels in no time. Anyway, I see that NE2 has created a brand new infobox for the LIRR. Great work, NE2! I myself created an infobox for the MNRR using the same format, except for the MNRR, I bolded and italicized (is that a real word?) the station name. If any changes should be needed to any of the infobox(es), here are the links:
Anyway, its great to be back, and I'll be here for any concerns whenever. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
BMT 8 redirects to BMT Astoria Line and BMT 9 to IRT Flushing Line. Is this ideal behavior? -- NE2 12:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On Talk:S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) is a proposed move of S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to Franklin Avenue Shuttle and S – 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to 42nd Street Shuttle. -- NE2 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing to make separate articles - IND Division, IRT Division, and BMT Division - to discuss the current status of these and their history after 1940. The Independent Subway System, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation would cover the history before 1940, when the companies ceased to exist. -- NE2 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car) -- NE2 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line) is on the BMT Broadway Line if Lawrence Street–MetroTech and Court Street are on the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. -- NE2 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to whoever was involved. I've nominated another one - Myrtle Avenue Line (surface) - for Good Article status. -- NE2 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone is able to find
reliable sources for the rosters of and routes served by the bus depots, I'm going to do what I did with
Flatbush Depot and move the attributable information to
Bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)
Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. See
Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Advice requested. --
NE2 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Syosset (LIRR station) is one of the articles posted for {{ Did you know}} and is shown on the Main Page. I didn't expect little old me could write an interesting article. If an interesting fact pops up from a new article in this group I'll nominate it, or better yet, you should nominate it. Tinlinkin 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that since we have fixed all transclusions to link to the master template, NYCS, I guess now we can start nominating all the service-specific templates (the line templates will stay, as per a past discussion). Shall I go ahead and start the Tfds? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that we still haven't finished our discussion on what the suffix for the Seventh Avenue station should be. Although emergency exit signs say IND Queens Blvd line, the problem is that the station is shared with 6 Av. trains as well. The southern portion is chained as such, and there is no physical track connections east or west of that station. This matter also implies with Dekalb Avenue, the one located under Flatbush Avenue and the other underneath Wyckoff. Why would Dekalb/Flatbush be a part of the Broadway Line (although they are served by Broadway trains) when the other stations are located a part of the 4th Av. line and Brighton line?
Suggestions:
Move DeKalb Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to DeKalb Avenue (New York City Subway): Although NE2 moved the article already, the station is shared by two lines as indicated by chaining. The past name conflicted with the other station names because the other stations going north and south were part of a different line. How could DeKalb Avenue be apart of the Broadway line while the trunk line is located in Manhattan?
Move Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) to Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway): See above.
Canal Street in Chinatown has the same issue, or close. Just add the disambig template, otheruses4. I know we shouldn't rely on it too much or go in overkill mode with it, but it's there when necessary, and for these cases, we will need them. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not about the classification of shared-line stations (DeKalb & Flatbush, 7th Avenue & 53rd Street, etc.), but the station articles as a primary topic and Wikipedia naming conventions. As I said, {{ otheruses4}} is used for disambiguation when the article that the template is used in is the primary topic or the parent of a group of articles (emphasized for the basis of my argument). A page like 96th Street (New York City Subway) has no problems being a disambig page as each station can be considered as a target for the reader, and there is no hierarchy of importance. But if, say, Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) takes on the contents of Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), even if {{ otheruses4}} is used, we are forced to assume that the 7th/53rd station is more important or notable than the others. I doubt that is the case. I would strictly oppose a move and others similar on this basis.
I noticed that you moved 50th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) to 50th Street (New York City Subway) (which was reverted). With that move, we are forced to assume the 8th Avenue station is somehow more notable than the 7th (or maybe the 6th). That is a bad judgment. The chaining issues remain, but do all sides need be addressed in the article name? I'm leaning towards no. The location and orientation of a station (foremost) along with which is the primary service should determine the article name, in my opinion for these cases. I also disagree with the current state of Canal Street (New York City Subway). I hope there is a better name for the Canal Street Broadway/Lexington/Nassau complex. If there is not, then I may settle on the Canal Street complex as the more notable than the 2 other stations and support the current arrangement. I still need to examine other examples like that. Do we accommodate all information on chaining in an article name? If that accommodation is made using (New York City Subway) as part of the name, I cannot agree with that.
I'm sorry I cannot be briefer with my explanation above. Tinlinkin 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I make a second "simplified" set of these templates, where the time information isn't included? For instance, then you can link to the services in Ocean Hill, Brooklyn using the templates, but without the unnecessary time data. Also, are there any suggestions for naming? Would it even be best to use the current naming for the simplified ones, and move the current ones to something like Template:NYCS Lexington local time? Probably all the uses that need the time are in the infoboxes, and there the code can be changed to call the time templates. -- NE2 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And then what happens if they bring back the 9? Or truncate the Z to Myrtle Avenue? Or - for something that's actually planned - extend the G? The idea of the templates is to make other articles that talk about the lines update automatically. -- NE2 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to change redirects like Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to point to Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway)#BMT Fourth Avenue Line rather than Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway). But some articles include "platforms" in the section title; should we standardize them with or without the word? -- NE2 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn. My favourite subway cars are R40, R40M and R42. I'd wish for an incomming stock (next order after R160ies) to resemble R40ies, and R42s.
GK tramrunner 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the service history info was removed for copyright issues. I want that information to be put back in the article, but written in our own words. I will be adding some info of my own, but I can't do it alone. I need your help. Please find whatever information you can about each individual subway line's service history and add it on the article. Thank You. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As of me, they are the part of my everyday American Life. Today, it is 15 years as I live in USA. My first two appartmens (since April 1992) were in along the West End Line. That time, it was served by a route B, which used R40ies, until April 1997. R68s entered B line R40ies went on Q.
being replaced by R160ies. Butafter the complete arrival of R160ies there will be new fleet ordered. So: make the new fleet look like R40ies!!!!!
GK tramrunner 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the service links are no longer in bold. Is there a reason why they can't be bold? Or why they shouldnt? Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles: "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)." and "Avoid other uses of boldface in the first paragraph, so the reader will not confuse the text with synonyms." B Division looks fine without bold. -- NE2 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
From some sources I've read that they will be replaced by newer cars, which will look the the R143/R160 NYC Subway standard.
PATH cars are favourite to me and to many railways. As of me, they get along with the
Never let them go. In case they will need to be gone, retain some museum copies for:
PATH cars reserve respect, as R40ies. I hope, they will not retire soon! GK tramrunner 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion at Template talk:NYCS. -- NE2 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing the deletion of {{ NYC acc navbox}}, a navigation template for the handicapped accessibility of the NYC transit systems at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 23#Template:NYC acc navbox. Tinlinkin 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to merge New York City Subway accessibility into List of New York City Subway stations. The merge tag has appeared for a couple days now. But as I was looking at the WP:NYCPT home page again, I noticed the blurb about accessibility. This propmpted me to post a message here for broader discussion, just to be sure of consensus.
Along with the merge, I would like to make
List of New York City Subway stations into a
sortable table. The table will have the following columns: "Station",
, "Line(s)", and "Service(s)". It would also be a good opportunity to demonstrate all the templates at
Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines. I don't think the services will be too much. I'd like to know if the time periods should be included, along with any other concerns to this conversion. I hope to start within a few days.
Tinlinkin 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in New York City', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single 'Streets and Squares' category. I've also let the Wikiproject New York know. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. -- Keefer4 | Talk 01:58, 31 March 2007 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |