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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Is there any objection to applying MiszaBot here to automatically archive? -- NE2 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently moved a number of station articles to match the names on signs. Imdanumber1 just moved them back, claiming "As per naming conventions at WP:NYCPT, we are going with the previous title." Can someone point me to where it was decided to not use what's on signs, including adding words like on "Howard Beach–JFK Airport" rather than "Howard Beach–JFK"? I would think that what's used on signs that commuters see every day would fit use common names better than what the MTA chose to put on the map. -- NE2 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::Support Your idea works best.
Pacific Coast Highway {
talk •
contribs} 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Before the merger, we agreed to use the schedules (or the stop listing). My idea is that we return to that. Whatever was listed in the schedules, would be used here. The reason I would like us to do so is because they tend to be more consistent. (the decision to use the map was a unilateral one, no one discussed this) In fact, this is just the tip of the iceberg of recent actions made without consensus within the project. I don't want to be a crybaby, but if this is going to work, we need to listen to each other, and respect everyone's concerns, not start edit wars and bully with policies. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I support using common names for article naming, I cannot surmise how a decision regarding a common name can be determined or justified. My strongest support for an article naming convention will be for the lowest common denominator (based on Bmitchelf's suggestion):
This is my proposal for a convention, which is perhaps a compromise between Pacific Coast Highway and NE2. Note that I did not address station complexes and shared stations, which still seem to be contentious. Tinlinkin 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this just pushes the arguments to the individual stations: is being on the map sufficient to "identify the station"? There are also issues with stations like Main Street–Flushing and Ditmars Boulevard–Astoria, where the map puts Flushing first as part of its standard of typically putting the community first, while signs put the street first. -- NE2 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. -- A bit iffy 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't know how that is relevant here. The proposal there is about using "(railway station)", "railway station", "station", etc. as a disambiguator. In this WikiProject, the discussion is about what is the official name of a New York City Subway station, or barring that, how station names should be established. Tinlinkin 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are past discussions in this WikiProject about the naming of New York City Subway station articles, including discussions about station complexes (I may have missed some):
I do not monitor all NYCS class articles, so discussions from those articles should be added here. Tinlinkin 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have listed all the stations for which there might be disagreement on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. Note that listing here does not mean that I or anyone else objects to using the name on the map or schedules. Please help fill in names from signs, schedules, and other official and third-party sources. Thank you. -- NE2 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone tagged the Fung Wah Bus Transportation Inc. article in the talk page with a Start-class assessment and having a lack of references last month. The article has improved immensely since it was tagged, and now includes the necessary citations. How do I go about getting this article reassessed? — Umofomia 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Go to Talk:Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on Talk:42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway) a while ago in which we determined that there is essentially no name for the "station complex" and that it is really two stations joined by a long passageway. Recently I split it, sparking a revert war with Imdanumber1, who claims there's no consensus. -- NE2 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, NE2 (no surprise) moved all articles based on the Eastern Parkway Line east of Utica Avenue to IRT New Lots Line, e.g. New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line). This doesn't make sense, as I don't know any source that says these stations are a part of the New Lots Line. What is the proper line moniker? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The big question is: what is the criteria and the sources are we deciding on for coming up with a naming convention? Should we list proposed individual criteria and sources here and should we vote on which ones are the best ones to use? Tinlinkin 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
List an individual criteria or source and then comment on the validity of each below each bullet.
Based on the format <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>):
This section is for commenting on the issues and validity of the sources used in determining a station name, as opposed to the above section, which asks if the source should determine the station name.
I guess I finally have time to discuss the naming issue. So, I myself object to using station signage. I don't like the ideas of rollsigns because those are probably just as worse as station signage. So that would make me turn to a piece of information that is citable, verifiable and attributed to a reliable source and that is the MTA's published map/schedules. I prefer using these pieces of info because they are the most updated piece of MTA's information as service changes and station closures warrant. There are a lot of situations where one name is better than the other:
1. The map says Grand Army Plaza, the schedules for the 2, 3 and 4 includes Prospect Park as the suffix. I'd include it because the map is really tight on space on some areas.
2. The map says Woodside-61st Street, the 7 schedule says 61st Street-Woodside. I'd agree with the map because the Woodside is somewhat more important than 61st Street, as the neighborhood is more important than the street.
3. The map uses Dyckman Street, the A schedule uses Dyckman Street (200th Street). I'd use Dyckman Street only because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the extra parentheses look awkward in the article titles.
4. The map uses High Street, A and C schedules uses High Street-Brooklyn Bridge. I'd go with High Street Brooklyn Bridge as per the same reasons of no. 1.
5. The map uses 23rd Street-Ely Avenue, so do the V schedules, but the E says 23rd Street (Ely Avenue). Although I'm against using dead street names, this case breaks the tie.
These are just a few cases, and there are many more that follow these in their footsteps. But what's important is that if we want to keep our information consistent and most accurate, such as accessibility, closings and name changes, then these are the places to go to. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, how can schedules be outdated if they are updated consistently? That makes no sense. Whatever we do, lets not try to make up our own convention for their names because that's original research. And like you said NE2, station signage and rollsigns cannot count as reliable sources because someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations.
However, I do have an idea:
For station naming, we should list what is more important to least in the title. What I mean by that is if one source lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, and another lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, go with Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue because the building is probably more important than the street itself. Neighborhoods are more important than buildings/parks/landmarks, and streets are at the bottom of the chain. If possible, try to list streets in alpha-order, if the MTA's naming convention doesn't conflict. By that I mean if there is more than one choice. I'll tell you more when I have time. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What was the decision for using en dashes (I think) based on again? WP:NC#Special characters states that those kinds of dashes should be avoided in article names; instead use simple hyphens. Tinlinkin 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If the naming convention discussion is becoming unclear and disjointed and drives potential interested users away, I agree. I'll take the heat for most of it because the format that I thought of didn't work out. I am also less willing to continue this discussion the way it is currently heading: a stalemate.
I see no less than five different opinions: myself, NE2, Imdanumber1, Pacific Coast Highway and BWCNY. My opinion can be swayed if I am persuaded by a strong argument, so I would rather support someone else's proposition than my own. And I have been disillusioned before by longstanding stalemates—particularly Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) with the discussion of United States major city naming conventions.
So how do we proceed towards a resolution? The one thing I think we can resolve is articles should not be moved without first discussing in this WikiProject. Tinlinkin 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Since {{ NYCS}} is the new home for all of the service templates and {{ NYCS time}}, I no longer find {{ NYCS time}} necessary, and there is no chance that it would be updated in the future. I substituted {{ NYCS time}} on the first 30+ line templates, but NE2 systematically reverted these changes, saying that List of New York City Subway services#Time periods might be moved to the future. I don't see this happening anytime soon. Does anyone else see this happening anytime soon?
I also added non-breaking spaces (
) in the line templates and bullets such as: • so as to separate the services and the time period details some may have and to keep the time period details in same line as the service it refers to, which he removed too. What should be done? Also, should the services be in bold in the service tables or not? I agree that the services shouldn't be in bold in the article body, except for cases where as in the 1 train article, if it refers to itself as it does, I guess it could be bolded. Thoughts? --
Imdanumber1 (
talk •
contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Which one looks better?
(1234) -- NE2 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names now includes most information. I listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names all the stations that are not currently at the timetable names. Please do not move any of these to "fix" them; I will not move any in the other direction while this discussion is ongoing. Note in particular the ones in bold, which, as far as I can tell, have never been at the timetable names. Many of these appear to be "outdated" names like 104th–102nd Streets and Sutphin Boulevard–JFK Airport, while others like 61st Street–Woodside agree with signage but not the map. I think this refutes using the timetables as our sole source of naming. -- NE2 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As of today, the only page left of it is Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. But before, as I remember there were full rosters of each depot. Where are those rosters gone? please GK tramrunner 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As it always were for me, the street is the source. Just look what's written on buses. Especially in Brooklyn. ALl of them have Depot Badges. GK tramrunner 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
According to a 1996 New York Times article:
I don't see any "turnoff" on aerial photos, and, from what I've read elsewhere, some of the other examples given are not quite correct:
Actually the bellmouth is at Utica Avenue on the IRT; the IND station has an unused shell above it.
All the plans I've seen show this line using a tunnel south of the Williamsburg Bridge.
Has anyone heard of this provision at Ditmars Boulevard? -- NE2 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#New York City Subway templates. -- NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The way we list the J/Z skip-stop stations (between Myrtle Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport) in infoboxes is inconsistent. At most stations, like 121st Street, only the next station in either direction is included. This results in a gap in coverage, since the infobox doesn't show which stop is next south on the Z. When I edited Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport, Broadway Junction, and Myrtle Avenue, I added a "skip-stop" row to cover this. On Broadway Junction, there is also an "express" row for the unused express tracks.
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to best handle this? I see two separate issues:
-- NE2 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
User:NE2 has removed the information on what subway car each subway lines uses on the A, C, E, J, M, N, and Q pages. He claims the sources I'm adding is not acceptable (there were photos taken from www.nycsubway.org). We need to discuss this thoroughly and figure what is an acceptable source for a subway car. The Legendary Ranger 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is an example of a good source: "Kawasaki also built many of the newest New York City subway trains, including the R142A cars that run on the Lexington Avenue line and the R143 cars on the L line." For specifications, nycsubway.org has scanned in pages from "Revenue and Non-Revenue Car Drawings", a NYCTA publication. -- NE2 06:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line). -- NE2 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just finished adding all station photos on Commons to one of three pages: Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, Independent Subway System, and Interborough Rapid Transit Company. If you upload a photo to Commons, please place it on one of these, as well as in the appropriate subcategory of Category:New York City Subway stations. Thank you. -- NE2 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/IND Eighth Avenue Line/archive1. Thank you. -- NE2 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The MTA shows a project of "EPK Joralemon Tube-Nevins". I know we've discussed this before, and partially based on chaining, we decided that the 4/5 platform is on the Lexington Avenue Line. But according to [23], the chaining of E (Eastern Parkway) actually continues to the double crossover just west of Borough Hall. -- NE2 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. -- NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
NE2, who rewrote articles within the scope, uses redirects in the article body ([[A (NYCS)]]) instead of templates ({{NYCS|A}}). I, for one, believe that this is unnecessary, and I object to the use of redirects in articles, especially if they are legitimately put there. My suggestion is that we revert back to using templates in the body for the text, as they are more consistent and can always be fixed if the articles undergo renaming in the future. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm working on is a brand new switch method for Template:NYCS. I plan to include all of the services links taken from the navigation box that weren't there before. It can be seen at User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox, my sandbox subpage. You can comment on it here, and I will then try to submit ideas I see fit for it as a final proposal and use AWB with my bot to replace them. It's not feasible to use redirects legitimately created for 100+ articles. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, what really matters is not how many people agreed "back in the day" but whether there is any reason to use the template rather than a link. Your only argument has been your dislike of redirects. If this is because of "server load", I believe templates cause more, and editing the page to replace the redirect with a template certainly does. -- NE2 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who is a member of this WikiProject, I can provide insight to what's going on here. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, what I'm seeing here is two issues: 1). whether to use template syntax or not -and- 2). a user's preference of redirects over direct links. [I think number1 (if I may) is not disputing that the templates cause overlinking.]
For the first issue, templates that produce regularly formatted text are usually undesirable. (That was the consensus from the deletion of Template:MNRR, etc., wasn't it?) The syntax of template transclusion is so simple that it's tempting to over-use. That's why I think number1 prefers templates: for their syntax.
On the second issue, I may have brought up the sentiment of "laziness". (I'm sure I have stated that somewhere before.) I respect the naming conventions of articles. That is why when I wikilink, I usually don't link with a redirect. But as I have created redirects myself, their purpose is valid and essential: to point to intended articles. (A good example is the redirects to Live with Regis and Kelly, some of which I created.) NE2 prefers to write articles through redirected links (while creating the redirects), but I don't tell him that is wrong, because it is not. A difference of style doesn't change what matters most: the wikilinks point to the correct articles.
I like templates, but particularly when they're the most helpful: in infoboxes, navigation boxes, and complicated wikitext formats, among other things.
Template:NYCS doesn't fall into any of those categories. Any link (transclusion) to that template has to be processed in order to produce (essentially) [[X (New York City Subway service)|X]]
, which is not a special format, and that's not good practice. Before, when the text was bold, that was still a minor thing. But when that template was proposed to parse service symbols (remember that?), that would have been a better argument to keep transcluding the template. Since that proposal was rejected, here we are.
So here's my suggestion and solution:
substitute the
template:NYCS. Just add subst:
to a preexisting transclusion of {{NYCS}}
and you'll avoid "using the template". Whenever you need to add the link to
R (New York City Subway service), use {{subst:NYCS|R}}
and you save typing time while you fulfill any wish to link directly and not transclude the template. If in subsitution you don't want a link, create a parameter "link" to
template:NYCS and call the parameter to not produce the link. (e.g. {{subst:NYCS|R|link=no}}
should produce R
.) If
R (New York City Subway service) should be moved to, say,
R (NYCS), there's no need to "fix the link." With this usage,
Template:NYCS can still exist as it is, but for substitution purposes.
I would guess that had NE2 knew about template substitution and implemented changes that way, this argument would not have escalated the way it did. And for number1, redirects are not bad and templates for simple substitutions are not the best use of templates. I hope my comment helps both sides in this ever-growing rivalry.
Finally, I have not found any usefulness for using the transclusion of Template:NYCS to keep track of changes. Whatever comments I have said before in that regard I now cannot support. Tinlinkin 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the best title for Suffern station, currently at Suffern (Metro-North station)? I thought Suffern is managed by NJ Transit. And doesn't the Main Line and Bergen County Line formally terminate at Suffern? Tinlinkin 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line): in the case where everything but the schedule uses a name, that name has been found to be the most common. -- NE2 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to reduce the space of the station succession in infoboxes? Put the services on the same line as the station, probably? Also, is the accessiblity icon necessary in station succession? Tinlinkin 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's my attempt: ( Special:ExpandTemplates is pretty nice) -- NE2 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Next north | 8th Av: 14th St ( A C E) |
---|---|
6th Av local: 14th St ( F V) | |
6th Av express: 34th St ( B D) | |
Next south | 8th Av local: Spring St ( A C E) |
8th Av express: Canal St ( A) | |
6th Av: B'way–Lafayette ( B D F V) | |
So what's going on here? Are we going to make the changes? -- NE2 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I found out a way to subst a switch template, courtesy of help from the village pump's tech department. I implemented this at my sandbox subpage, and a user helped me as well:
{{subst:User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox|A|subst=subst:}} results in A. Now look at the editing field. Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that NE2 moved the Jackson Heights complex, removing the NYCS suffix. I have my doubts on this, as I don't think this is too cool of an idea. What I think we should do is include the word "complex" within the name title, similar to how http://www.stationreporter.net does that. Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if NYCS map M.svg could use any changes before I make one for every service. Thank you. -- NE2 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about the way it's now formatted on M (New York City Subway service)? I probably will add text to the map, showing where the terminals are. -- NE2 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Just change it to the route color. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I will start making maps for other services soon; now is your last chance to make suggestions. I've updated the one on M (New York City Subway service) to my current plans. -- NE2 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I added maps to all articles but the shuttles. Once I figure out whether to zoom those, I'll add them too. -- NE2 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for the elevated Culver Line being called the BMT Culver Line? These two articles both refer to the elevated portion as the IND Culver Line, and the only post-1954 articles that use "BMT Culver Line" are talking about the old Culver Shuttle. Here's a book that says "the former BMT Culver line". Official subway maps from 1954 to 1966, after which lines were colored by service, show the Culver Line as an IND division line, and the 1966 map even shows West Eighth and Stillwell as inter-division transfers. The table on page 197 of [25] shows the Culver Line as IND. -- NE2 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Imdanumber1 added images like Image:NYCS-SSI-nightsonly.svg to the station listings recently. I think the awkward numbers after services could be replaced by these, with an alt attribute so you can mouse over and see what it is. For example:
instead of
and
instead of
Does this look like a good idea? -- NE2 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I compiled a disorganized but complete list of cases on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines/Notes for possible conversion to use icons for times. I'm thinking we could use a partly-filled 24-hour clock instead of the current icons to make it clearer what's being shown. If it's in the peak direction, we use a diamond, and if it's weekends, we use gray. Maybe for the diamond services we could even do 7 , with the diamond shaded properly of course. -- NE2 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I started implementing this on the BMT Astoria Line and BMT Broadway Line stations. -- NE2 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started making maps of the lines; what do you think about the format at right? -- NE2 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is essentially a continuation of a discussion further up. Is there a reason that we place the acronym before the line name? Per use common names, we should be using the most common precise name. Precision says that names like "A-C-E Line" or "N and R Line" are not good names, but the acronym is not normally needed for precision. There is only one Concourse Line, only one Nassau Street Line, only one Jamaica Line, etc. in the subway, and these are the most common precise names. The MTA, when they disambiguate, usually puts the acronym after the line name - such as "Broadway Line (BMT)" or "Archer Avenue Line - IND". The former is also our method of disambiguation, and I see no reason why we cannot use this for the few ambiguous cases, where multiple lines in the subway system have that name (Broadway, 63rd Street, and Archer Avenue are all I can think of, unless we count former els like Lexington Avenue). When the name is otherwise ambiguous, like Crosstown Line, we can either use the acronym or use (New York City Subway). It should be noted that even in possibly ambiguous cases like the Broadway Line, the MTA and the media use simply "Broadway Line". (Note however that the MTA uses "Broadway Line (IRT)" at least once, referring of course to the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line.)
The other problem, also detailed in the earlier discussion, and the one that made me think about this, is that sometimes it is not clear which "division" a B Division line belongs to. Most are obvious, but the elevated parts of the Culver and Fulton Street Lines present problems, and the Second Avenue Subway may be worse. It was planned as an IND line for years, but now the only service in it will be the Q, a BMT service. (The T will not use any other lines, and the connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel will not be used for revenue service, under current plans.)
The obvious corollary is that station article names don't need the acronym either, so instead of "103rd Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)" we would use "103rd Street (Lexington Avenue Line)". The only exception may be the Broadway Line (BMT), especially since some of its station names are also used on the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. (But Canal Street (New York City Subway) is a worse problem, and we haven't really had any issues with it.)
If this is not too long, and you did read, please comment. I will be willing to do the work of moving and fixing double redirects, so that is not an issue. -- NE2 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to clarify what relevance the old IND/BMT split has in the present day. B-1 and B-2 are used for radio frequencies, and probably the punch boxes and signals. At least the signal list from the mid-1990s uses IND/BMT. IND/BMT are sometimes used by the MTA when referring to stations and lines. Chaining is separated between IND and BMT. These don't always match up, at least on the elevated parts of the Fulton Street Line and Culver Line, and according to [28] [29] [30] [31], the Flushing Line uses B-1 (!). I really think the best way to resolve this is to move at least IND Culver Line to either Culver Line or Culver Line (New York City Subway). The others can probably stay where they are, but the Culver is ambiguous. -- NE2 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I found a list of towers: [32] The IND and BMT have been essentially integrated here, with one tower (Essex) controlling significant portions of the Nassau Street and Sixth Avenue Lines. -- NE2 16:54, 3 May 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Is there any objection to applying MiszaBot here to automatically archive? -- NE2 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently moved a number of station articles to match the names on signs. Imdanumber1 just moved them back, claiming "As per naming conventions at WP:NYCPT, we are going with the previous title." Can someone point me to where it was decided to not use what's on signs, including adding words like on "Howard Beach–JFK Airport" rather than "Howard Beach–JFK"? I would think that what's used on signs that commuters see every day would fit use common names better than what the MTA chose to put on the map. -- NE2 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::Support Your idea works best.
Pacific Coast Highway {
talk •
contribs} 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Before the merger, we agreed to use the schedules (or the stop listing). My idea is that we return to that. Whatever was listed in the schedules, would be used here. The reason I would like us to do so is because they tend to be more consistent. (the decision to use the map was a unilateral one, no one discussed this) In fact, this is just the tip of the iceberg of recent actions made without consensus within the project. I don't want to be a crybaby, but if this is going to work, we need to listen to each other, and respect everyone's concerns, not start edit wars and bully with policies. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I support using common names for article naming, I cannot surmise how a decision regarding a common name can be determined or justified. My strongest support for an article naming convention will be for the lowest common denominator (based on Bmitchelf's suggestion):
This is my proposal for a convention, which is perhaps a compromise between Pacific Coast Highway and NE2. Note that I did not address station complexes and shared stations, which still seem to be contentious. Tinlinkin 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this just pushes the arguments to the individual stations: is being on the map sufficient to "identify the station"? There are also issues with stations like Main Street–Flushing and Ditmars Boulevard–Astoria, where the map puts Flushing first as part of its standard of typically putting the community first, while signs put the street first. -- NE2 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. -- A bit iffy 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't know how that is relevant here. The proposal there is about using "(railway station)", "railway station", "station", etc. as a disambiguator. In this WikiProject, the discussion is about what is the official name of a New York City Subway station, or barring that, how station names should be established. Tinlinkin 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are past discussions in this WikiProject about the naming of New York City Subway station articles, including discussions about station complexes (I may have missed some):
I do not monitor all NYCS class articles, so discussions from those articles should be added here. Tinlinkin 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have listed all the stations for which there might be disagreement on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. Note that listing here does not mean that I or anyone else objects to using the name on the map or schedules. Please help fill in names from signs, schedules, and other official and third-party sources. Thank you. -- NE2 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone tagged the Fung Wah Bus Transportation Inc. article in the talk page with a Start-class assessment and having a lack of references last month. The article has improved immensely since it was tagged, and now includes the necessary citations. How do I go about getting this article reassessed? — Umofomia 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Go to Talk:Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on Talk:42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway) a while ago in which we determined that there is essentially no name for the "station complex" and that it is really two stations joined by a long passageway. Recently I split it, sparking a revert war with Imdanumber1, who claims there's no consensus. -- NE2 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, NE2 (no surprise) moved all articles based on the Eastern Parkway Line east of Utica Avenue to IRT New Lots Line, e.g. New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line). This doesn't make sense, as I don't know any source that says these stations are a part of the New Lots Line. What is the proper line moniker? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The big question is: what is the criteria and the sources are we deciding on for coming up with a naming convention? Should we list proposed individual criteria and sources here and should we vote on which ones are the best ones to use? Tinlinkin 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
List an individual criteria or source and then comment on the validity of each below each bullet.
Based on the format <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>):
This section is for commenting on the issues and validity of the sources used in determining a station name, as opposed to the above section, which asks if the source should determine the station name.
I guess I finally have time to discuss the naming issue. So, I myself object to using station signage. I don't like the ideas of rollsigns because those are probably just as worse as station signage. So that would make me turn to a piece of information that is citable, verifiable and attributed to a reliable source and that is the MTA's published map/schedules. I prefer using these pieces of info because they are the most updated piece of MTA's information as service changes and station closures warrant. There are a lot of situations where one name is better than the other:
1. The map says Grand Army Plaza, the schedules for the 2, 3 and 4 includes Prospect Park as the suffix. I'd include it because the map is really tight on space on some areas.
2. The map says Woodside-61st Street, the 7 schedule says 61st Street-Woodside. I'd agree with the map because the Woodside is somewhat more important than 61st Street, as the neighborhood is more important than the street.
3. The map uses Dyckman Street, the A schedule uses Dyckman Street (200th Street). I'd use Dyckman Street only because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the extra parentheses look awkward in the article titles.
4. The map uses High Street, A and C schedules uses High Street-Brooklyn Bridge. I'd go with High Street Brooklyn Bridge as per the same reasons of no. 1.
5. The map uses 23rd Street-Ely Avenue, so do the V schedules, but the E says 23rd Street (Ely Avenue). Although I'm against using dead street names, this case breaks the tie.
These are just a few cases, and there are many more that follow these in their footsteps. But what's important is that if we want to keep our information consistent and most accurate, such as accessibility, closings and name changes, then these are the places to go to. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, how can schedules be outdated if they are updated consistently? That makes no sense. Whatever we do, lets not try to make up our own convention for their names because that's original research. And like you said NE2, station signage and rollsigns cannot count as reliable sources because someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations.
However, I do have an idea:
For station naming, we should list what is more important to least in the title. What I mean by that is if one source lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, and another lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, go with Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue because the building is probably more important than the street itself. Neighborhoods are more important than buildings/parks/landmarks, and streets are at the bottom of the chain. If possible, try to list streets in alpha-order, if the MTA's naming convention doesn't conflict. By that I mean if there is more than one choice. I'll tell you more when I have time. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What was the decision for using en dashes (I think) based on again? WP:NC#Special characters states that those kinds of dashes should be avoided in article names; instead use simple hyphens. Tinlinkin 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If the naming convention discussion is becoming unclear and disjointed and drives potential interested users away, I agree. I'll take the heat for most of it because the format that I thought of didn't work out. I am also less willing to continue this discussion the way it is currently heading: a stalemate.
I see no less than five different opinions: myself, NE2, Imdanumber1, Pacific Coast Highway and BWCNY. My opinion can be swayed if I am persuaded by a strong argument, so I would rather support someone else's proposition than my own. And I have been disillusioned before by longstanding stalemates—particularly Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) with the discussion of United States major city naming conventions.
So how do we proceed towards a resolution? The one thing I think we can resolve is articles should not be moved without first discussing in this WikiProject. Tinlinkin 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Since {{ NYCS}} is the new home for all of the service templates and {{ NYCS time}}, I no longer find {{ NYCS time}} necessary, and there is no chance that it would be updated in the future. I substituted {{ NYCS time}} on the first 30+ line templates, but NE2 systematically reverted these changes, saying that List of New York City Subway services#Time periods might be moved to the future. I don't see this happening anytime soon. Does anyone else see this happening anytime soon?
I also added non-breaking spaces (
) in the line templates and bullets such as: • so as to separate the services and the time period details some may have and to keep the time period details in same line as the service it refers to, which he removed too. What should be done? Also, should the services be in bold in the service tables or not? I agree that the services shouldn't be in bold in the article body, except for cases where as in the 1 train article, if it refers to itself as it does, I guess it could be bolded. Thoughts? --
Imdanumber1 (
talk •
contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Which one looks better?
(1234) -- NE2 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names now includes most information. I listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names all the stations that are not currently at the timetable names. Please do not move any of these to "fix" them; I will not move any in the other direction while this discussion is ongoing. Note in particular the ones in bold, which, as far as I can tell, have never been at the timetable names. Many of these appear to be "outdated" names like 104th–102nd Streets and Sutphin Boulevard–JFK Airport, while others like 61st Street–Woodside agree with signage but not the map. I think this refutes using the timetables as our sole source of naming. -- NE2 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As of today, the only page left of it is Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. But before, as I remember there were full rosters of each depot. Where are those rosters gone? please GK tramrunner 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As it always were for me, the street is the source. Just look what's written on buses. Especially in Brooklyn. ALl of them have Depot Badges. GK tramrunner 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
According to a 1996 New York Times article:
I don't see any "turnoff" on aerial photos, and, from what I've read elsewhere, some of the other examples given are not quite correct:
Actually the bellmouth is at Utica Avenue on the IRT; the IND station has an unused shell above it.
All the plans I've seen show this line using a tunnel south of the Williamsburg Bridge.
Has anyone heard of this provision at Ditmars Boulevard? -- NE2 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#New York City Subway templates. -- NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The way we list the J/Z skip-stop stations (between Myrtle Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport) in infoboxes is inconsistent. At most stations, like 121st Street, only the next station in either direction is included. This results in a gap in coverage, since the infobox doesn't show which stop is next south on the Z. When I edited Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport, Broadway Junction, and Myrtle Avenue, I added a "skip-stop" row to cover this. On Broadway Junction, there is also an "express" row for the unused express tracks.
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to best handle this? I see two separate issues:
-- NE2 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
User:NE2 has removed the information on what subway car each subway lines uses on the A, C, E, J, M, N, and Q pages. He claims the sources I'm adding is not acceptable (there were photos taken from www.nycsubway.org). We need to discuss this thoroughly and figure what is an acceptable source for a subway car. The Legendary Ranger 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is an example of a good source: "Kawasaki also built many of the newest New York City subway trains, including the R142A cars that run on the Lexington Avenue line and the R143 cars on the L line." For specifications, nycsubway.org has scanned in pages from "Revenue and Non-Revenue Car Drawings", a NYCTA publication. -- NE2 06:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line). -- NE2 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just finished adding all station photos on Commons to one of three pages: Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, Independent Subway System, and Interborough Rapid Transit Company. If you upload a photo to Commons, please place it on one of these, as well as in the appropriate subcategory of Category:New York City Subway stations. Thank you. -- NE2 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/IND Eighth Avenue Line/archive1. Thank you. -- NE2 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The MTA shows a project of "EPK Joralemon Tube-Nevins". I know we've discussed this before, and partially based on chaining, we decided that the 4/5 platform is on the Lexington Avenue Line. But according to [23], the chaining of E (Eastern Parkway) actually continues to the double crossover just west of Borough Hall. -- NE2 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. -- NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
NE2, who rewrote articles within the scope, uses redirects in the article body ([[A (NYCS)]]) instead of templates ({{NYCS|A}}). I, for one, believe that this is unnecessary, and I object to the use of redirects in articles, especially if they are legitimately put there. My suggestion is that we revert back to using templates in the body for the text, as they are more consistent and can always be fixed if the articles undergo renaming in the future. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm working on is a brand new switch method for Template:NYCS. I plan to include all of the services links taken from the navigation box that weren't there before. It can be seen at User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox, my sandbox subpage. You can comment on it here, and I will then try to submit ideas I see fit for it as a final proposal and use AWB with my bot to replace them. It's not feasible to use redirects legitimately created for 100+ articles. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, what really matters is not how many people agreed "back in the day" but whether there is any reason to use the template rather than a link. Your only argument has been your dislike of redirects. If this is because of "server load", I believe templates cause more, and editing the page to replace the redirect with a template certainly does. -- NE2 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who is a member of this WikiProject, I can provide insight to what's going on here. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, what I'm seeing here is two issues: 1). whether to use template syntax or not -and- 2). a user's preference of redirects over direct links. [I think number1 (if I may) is not disputing that the templates cause overlinking.]
For the first issue, templates that produce regularly formatted text are usually undesirable. (That was the consensus from the deletion of Template:MNRR, etc., wasn't it?) The syntax of template transclusion is so simple that it's tempting to over-use. That's why I think number1 prefers templates: for their syntax.
On the second issue, I may have brought up the sentiment of "laziness". (I'm sure I have stated that somewhere before.) I respect the naming conventions of articles. That is why when I wikilink, I usually don't link with a redirect. But as I have created redirects myself, their purpose is valid and essential: to point to intended articles. (A good example is the redirects to Live with Regis and Kelly, some of which I created.) NE2 prefers to write articles through redirected links (while creating the redirects), but I don't tell him that is wrong, because it is not. A difference of style doesn't change what matters most: the wikilinks point to the correct articles.
I like templates, but particularly when they're the most helpful: in infoboxes, navigation boxes, and complicated wikitext formats, among other things.
Template:NYCS doesn't fall into any of those categories. Any link (transclusion) to that template has to be processed in order to produce (essentially) [[X (New York City Subway service)|X]]
, which is not a special format, and that's not good practice. Before, when the text was bold, that was still a minor thing. But when that template was proposed to parse service symbols (remember that?), that would have been a better argument to keep transcluding the template. Since that proposal was rejected, here we are.
So here's my suggestion and solution:
substitute the
template:NYCS. Just add subst:
to a preexisting transclusion of {{NYCS}}
and you'll avoid "using the template". Whenever you need to add the link to
R (New York City Subway service), use {{subst:NYCS|R}}
and you save typing time while you fulfill any wish to link directly and not transclude the template. If in subsitution you don't want a link, create a parameter "link" to
template:NYCS and call the parameter to not produce the link. (e.g. {{subst:NYCS|R|link=no}}
should produce R
.) If
R (New York City Subway service) should be moved to, say,
R (NYCS), there's no need to "fix the link." With this usage,
Template:NYCS can still exist as it is, but for substitution purposes.
I would guess that had NE2 knew about template substitution and implemented changes that way, this argument would not have escalated the way it did. And for number1, redirects are not bad and templates for simple substitutions are not the best use of templates. I hope my comment helps both sides in this ever-growing rivalry.
Finally, I have not found any usefulness for using the transclusion of Template:NYCS to keep track of changes. Whatever comments I have said before in that regard I now cannot support. Tinlinkin 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the best title for Suffern station, currently at Suffern (Metro-North station)? I thought Suffern is managed by NJ Transit. And doesn't the Main Line and Bergen County Line formally terminate at Suffern? Tinlinkin 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line): in the case where everything but the schedule uses a name, that name has been found to be the most common. -- NE2 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to reduce the space of the station succession in infoboxes? Put the services on the same line as the station, probably? Also, is the accessiblity icon necessary in station succession? Tinlinkin 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's my attempt: ( Special:ExpandTemplates is pretty nice) -- NE2 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Next north | 8th Av: 14th St ( A C E) |
---|---|
6th Av local: 14th St ( F V) | |
6th Av express: 34th St ( B D) | |
Next south | 8th Av local: Spring St ( A C E) |
8th Av express: Canal St ( A) | |
6th Av: B'way–Lafayette ( B D F V) | |
So what's going on here? Are we going to make the changes? -- NE2 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I found out a way to subst a switch template, courtesy of help from the village pump's tech department. I implemented this at my sandbox subpage, and a user helped me as well:
{{subst:User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox|A|subst=subst:}} results in A. Now look at the editing field. Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that NE2 moved the Jackson Heights complex, removing the NYCS suffix. I have my doubts on this, as I don't think this is too cool of an idea. What I think we should do is include the word "complex" within the name title, similar to how http://www.stationreporter.net does that. Any opinions? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if NYCS map M.svg could use any changes before I make one for every service. Thank you. -- NE2 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about the way it's now formatted on M (New York City Subway service)? I probably will add text to the map, showing where the terminals are. -- NE2 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Just change it to the route color. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs} 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I will start making maps for other services soon; now is your last chance to make suggestions. I've updated the one on M (New York City Subway service) to my current plans. -- NE2 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I added maps to all articles but the shuttles. Once I figure out whether to zoom those, I'll add them too. -- NE2 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for the elevated Culver Line being called the BMT Culver Line? These two articles both refer to the elevated portion as the IND Culver Line, and the only post-1954 articles that use "BMT Culver Line" are talking about the old Culver Shuttle. Here's a book that says "the former BMT Culver line". Official subway maps from 1954 to 1966, after which lines were colored by service, show the Culver Line as an IND division line, and the 1966 map even shows West Eighth and Stillwell as inter-division transfers. The table on page 197 of [25] shows the Culver Line as IND. -- NE2 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Imdanumber1 added images like Image:NYCS-SSI-nightsonly.svg to the station listings recently. I think the awkward numbers after services could be replaced by these, with an alt attribute so you can mouse over and see what it is. For example:
instead of
and
instead of
Does this look like a good idea? -- NE2 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I compiled a disorganized but complete list of cases on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines/Notes for possible conversion to use icons for times. I'm thinking we could use a partly-filled 24-hour clock instead of the current icons to make it clearer what's being shown. If it's in the peak direction, we use a diamond, and if it's weekends, we use gray. Maybe for the diamond services we could even do 7 , with the diamond shaded properly of course. -- NE2 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I started implementing this on the BMT Astoria Line and BMT Broadway Line stations. -- NE2 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started making maps of the lines; what do you think about the format at right? -- NE2 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is essentially a continuation of a discussion further up. Is there a reason that we place the acronym before the line name? Per use common names, we should be using the most common precise name. Precision says that names like "A-C-E Line" or "N and R Line" are not good names, but the acronym is not normally needed for precision. There is only one Concourse Line, only one Nassau Street Line, only one Jamaica Line, etc. in the subway, and these are the most common precise names. The MTA, when they disambiguate, usually puts the acronym after the line name - such as "Broadway Line (BMT)" or "Archer Avenue Line - IND". The former is also our method of disambiguation, and I see no reason why we cannot use this for the few ambiguous cases, where multiple lines in the subway system have that name (Broadway, 63rd Street, and Archer Avenue are all I can think of, unless we count former els like Lexington Avenue). When the name is otherwise ambiguous, like Crosstown Line, we can either use the acronym or use (New York City Subway). It should be noted that even in possibly ambiguous cases like the Broadway Line, the MTA and the media use simply "Broadway Line". (Note however that the MTA uses "Broadway Line (IRT)" at least once, referring of course to the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line.)
The other problem, also detailed in the earlier discussion, and the one that made me think about this, is that sometimes it is not clear which "division" a B Division line belongs to. Most are obvious, but the elevated parts of the Culver and Fulton Street Lines present problems, and the Second Avenue Subway may be worse. It was planned as an IND line for years, but now the only service in it will be the Q, a BMT service. (The T will not use any other lines, and the connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel will not be used for revenue service, under current plans.)
The obvious corollary is that station article names don't need the acronym either, so instead of "103rd Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)" we would use "103rd Street (Lexington Avenue Line)". The only exception may be the Broadway Line (BMT), especially since some of its station names are also used on the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. (But Canal Street (New York City Subway) is a worse problem, and we haven't really had any issues with it.)
If this is not too long, and you did read, please comment. I will be willing to do the work of moving and fixing double redirects, so that is not an issue. -- NE2 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to clarify what relevance the old IND/BMT split has in the present day. B-1 and B-2 are used for radio frequencies, and probably the punch boxes and signals. At least the signal list from the mid-1990s uses IND/BMT. IND/BMT are sometimes used by the MTA when referring to stations and lines. Chaining is separated between IND and BMT. These don't always match up, at least on the elevated parts of the Fulton Street Line and Culver Line, and according to [28] [29] [30] [31], the Flushing Line uses B-1 (!). I really think the best way to resolve this is to move at least IND Culver Line to either Culver Line or Culver Line (New York City Subway). The others can probably stay where they are, but the Culver is ambiguous. -- NE2 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I found a list of towers: [32] The IND and BMT have been essentially integrated here, with one tower (Essex) controlling significant portions of the Nassau Street and Sixth Avenue Lines. -- NE2 16:54, 3 May 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |