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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
User:Eric B (who coincidentally is the author of Car History and Line by Line History) pointed me to some nice sources about past IRT and BMT history: [1] and [2]. I think we can use these as references and reinstate all original service history sections that were removed. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS time has been replaced by template:NYCS time 2. The new one takes the following parameters:
Template:NYCS br is a template used only inside the service templates; it formats the uses so a new line is added only when time=full or time=text.
Here are some examples with template:NYCS Lexington:
Usage | ||
---|---|---|
no time parameter | 4, 5, 6, and <6> | Used in ordinary text, like "the IRT Lexington Avenue Line ( 4, 5, 6, and <6>) is the busiest rapid transit line..." |
time=show | 4 5 6 <6> | Used for transfers and next stations in infoboxes, such as on Lexington Avenue–63rd Street and 103rd Street |
time=full |
4
(all times) 5 (all times except late nights) 6 (all times) <6> (weekdays until 8:45 p.m., peak direction) |
Used for services in infoboxes, such as on 125th Street |
time=text |
4 (all times) 5 (all times except late nights) 6 (all times) <6> (weekdays until 8:45 p.m., peak direction) |
Used for transfers on service articles and services on line articles; see V (New York City Subway service)#Station listing and IRT Lexington Avenue Line#Station listing |
and for the G on Queens Boulevard:
time=show | G |
time=full | G (nights after 9:00 p.m. and weekends) |
time=text | G (nights after 9:00 p.m. and weekends) |
-- NE2 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I really don't think it is a good idea to put large amount of text in the table, as what I see at V (New York City Subway service). It increases the verbosity of the table, making one have to "read" it. I remember doing something like this last summer, which was incidentally frowned upon because of the same reason. So I think that what I did at 1 (New York City Subway service) would work better. Look and see. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:NC#Special characters, the endashes (–) need to be removed from the station article titles and replaced with hyphens (-). All articles originally had hyphens, but they were changed to endashes, and now they need to be changed back. Some of them have been changed back, but there are many more to go. I've started to do some myself, but there are way too many, and I think we may need a bot for this. – Crashintome4196 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are fewer station article names with their suffixes removed, courtesy of NE2. Rather than start an edit war where he assumes his ideas are "better", I've decided to bring it up myself to prevent things from getting out of control. What's best, to include it or not to include it? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Most articles about railway/subway stations are expected to have a disambiguator. This is what I tried to say before. Unless the name is so obvious that it is a station or transportation complex ( Grand Central Terminal, Frankford Transportation Center), removing the disambiguator will lead to the inconsistency of some stations having the disambiguator and some without. Few people complain that the disambiguator is extraneous.
What about the following articles?
These articles are by choice disambiguated to their respective transit systems. Do you suggest the disambiguators for these should be removed as well? (Don't go changing those articles based on my suggestion!)
I oppose the removal of disambiguators for NYC Subway articles. "(New York City Subway)" should also be restored to articles that indicate a street intersection. I am aware of guidelines, and I would ignore the rules here.
However, people have been passionate about precision. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) : there was a heated debate whether TV series episodes need to be disambiguated (e.g. Unfriendly Skies (CSI episode) versus Unfriendly Skies). Through arbitration, it was decided to disambiguate when necessary; therefore, the latter name in the example is the current title. Do I think that is analogous to this station situation? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I lean towards no. And I certainly don't want to go to arbitration to determine consensus. Tinlinkin 12:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have news for you, NE2. If you don't want to be called a dick, stop acting like one. If people didn't act as such, we wouldn't need any other policies. That said, just about every page you moved will have its original title reinstated, except your credibility will be damaged. I suggest you learn to work with others instead of acting reckless. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Geoking66 placed bullets in some station infoboxes, like in [3]. I reverted, since this is one more thing that needs to be changed when the TA changes services. However, this can be done automatically with a simple change to template:NYCS time 2 and template:infobox NYCS. Do you think this is a good idea? -- NE2 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I like it. It is a little flashy, but as long as it's done in a tidy fashion. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribns} 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a continuation from a discussion above at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Notes about new time template.
The subway transfers at V are listed in a highly verbose way. For instance, this:
versus this:
The table at V is far more bloated than the one at 1. Look at the tables from the MTA website. They are not at all hard to use. A proposal was made back in November to use a very similar format to theirs. They use icons in place of long verbiage in the style of "all times except late nights (12:00 midnight-6:00 a.m.)". However, they do omit time information and simply list services.
Also, coming to think of it, putting bus connections in the subway articles themselves isn't the best solution either. Wikipedia is hardly the go-to source for travel information in New York City, so it is not terribly important to include complete bus connection information. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, NE2, we had a specific problem like this where a very similar suggestion like the table at V is extremely wordy. A discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7/Archive 2#Station service. I understand that Consensus can change, but I don't think we should use the same table format that people may disapprove of again. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we use Template:Infobox Station to replace commuter rail station infoboxes such as Template:Infobox LIRR? See Hempstead (LIRR station) and Hicksville (LIRR station) for the generic infoboxes (and compare with Babylon (LIRR station)). Tinlinkin 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you guys mentioned an image used for the infobox, using station signage. I remember a discussion thread stating Flamurai's idea on GIF images. They do render horribly, and it is the Wikimedia Foundation's goal to present free images to the community. That is why we should create SVG images of the signage, if we decide to go along with it. I was proposing something like this for the longest, except I wasn't yet introduced to free use images. I do, however, fail to see how Image:Mastic-shirley-lirr.gif is fair use. Fonts of any kind are not copyrightable, and adding outlines and whatnot is are not enough to create authorship. The subway bullets, as well as pictures of signage are also so simple that they are probably public domain. I myself would think it is a good idea to use a station signage imitation for the name parameter in {{ Infobox NYCS}}. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to the Commons, let me know. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Myrtle–Willoughby Avenues | |
---|---|
A | B |
style= <choice of LIRR, MNRR (for multiple lines), MNRR Hudson, MNRR Harlem, MNRR New Haven, MNRR Pascack Valley, and MNRR Port Jervis>
.
Tinlinkin
10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)type=[[Metro-North Railroad|Metro-North]] and [[Amtrak]] station
for identifying the multiple operators.
Fordham is possibly problematic for a style, but since the Harlem Line is the dominant service, that is what I would use.
Tinlinkin
19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)I have implemented the suggestions for the NYCS stations, including the addition of service bullets. What do you all think? Tinlinkin 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is the proof that the line south of Ditmas Avenue is called "IND Culver Line" and not "BMT Culver Line"? I know right now, it is served by an IND Subway Line, but before the connection between Church and Ditmas Avenues was built and the forming of the Culver Shuttle, it was part of the BMT because it connected to the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger ( talk • contribs)
-- Imdanumber1 ( talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Our templates are a little too complicated; List of New York City Subway stations ran up against template limits. Don't do anything drastic; it may be possible to simply use a few sub-templates inside the if statements. If people feel something needs to be done now, reversing the recent changes to add bullets to the infoboxes is enough until we fix the coding. So we should decide if we should temporarily revert that, or deal with the bigger problem. -- NE2 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{NYCS Queens | time=show | omit=F}}
. But there may be other ways.Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue ♿ | |
---|---|
A | B |
I modified Template:NYCS br to use #switch rather than nested #ifs and both pages now work. There are probably some other places we can convert to #switch. -- NE2 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The two pages should now display properly. Tinlinkin 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the "image_caption" parameter to Template:Infobox NYCS. If somebody knows what the captions for pictures in the station infoboxes should be, as shown by example with 125th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), please add those. Tinlinkin 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, yes, I know, I'm sorry. The reason I bring this up is because NE2 systematically changes the List of New York City Subway stations page, for example: he calls one station "Second Avenue" because it is the common name, as seen on signs, while Lower East Side–Second Avenue is used on schedules, the map, and line info for the F and V. I keep telling him that just because he finds Second Avenue only w/o LES on Google searches doesn't mean that that is the "common" name. Google searches for names within the news is NOT the end-all, be-all go to guide for the MTA's naming choice. Any tips to help NE2? He is not doing anything but self destructing the project by bullying others with guideline overkill. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk · contribs) 11:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not expressing a view as to the correct outcome. I am not even sure which station names are in dispute.
But I do think the project should arrive at a consensus for how stations will be named. And that consensus should be based on verifiable facts. The MTA is not always consistent, so whatever standard you use, it will be possible to find legitimate reference sources that disagree. Marc Shepherd 13:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a navigation template like Template:NYSubway3 to put at the bottom of station articles a good idea? Tinlinkin 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed he has been recently discussing and editing other users' talk pages? The Legendary Ranger 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated quite a few templates for deletion (and also a category for renaming):
-- Tinlinkin 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the renaming of the stub category and template is kind of a big deal. Already one of our members already expressed some ambiguity about the proposed renaming! Tinlinkin 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
From Talk:1 (New York City Subway service), a proposal has been raised that BMT service articles of the form "BMT number" (such as BMT 13) should be renamed to "number (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service)". I agree with this renaming. Thoughts? Tinlinkin 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying my hand of late creating Railway line templates (our new shiny German import) for a few lines, including NJT's NEC and Raritan Valley lines. If anyone here could give a look at {{ Raritan Valley Line}} and {{ Northeast Corridor Line}} and give me feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it. (The RVL template is currently on all relevant pages; the NEC template is only on the North Elizabeth page for now.) Some judgement calls were involved in the creation of these templates, (especially the representation of the New York approaches) and I'd especially welcome comments on that. Thanks in advance, — CComMack ( t– c) 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
|
My attempt at shrinking can be seen on the right and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Railway line template#Shrunken version. -- NE2 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, make changes at Template:NYCS B'way-7th Av Line. – Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a double-width line for a local/express portion would be nice; I may create one. -- NE2 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon User:Oosoom/Map_icons, where I found the icons like the following: File:BSicon vABZrg.svg [renamed from BSicon_vBHFa.svg in 21013] . I assume the official documentation still needs to be translated, but I guess these represent local and express services. IF AND ONLY IF the official German documentation for these symbols is fully translated into English would I dare use these in the railway template format. Otherwise, we do have the multiple column format, which is more than adequate. Tinlinkin 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried my hand at {{
IND Eighth Avenue Line}}
and {{
IND Sixth Avenue Line}}
. Follow the links; I haven't transcluded them. The Sixth Avenue Line was considerably more difficult to portray, due to all the branching at both its northern and southern ends.
Marc Shepherd
20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll have it ready by tomorrow. I'll work on the BMT Canarsie Line. – Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
IRT Lexington Avenue Line}}
. Now, let's see how any of these fit into the articles.
Marc Shepherd
10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)I don't think it's necessary to show such detail on the loops; the diagrams are basically showing every track at South Ferry, when other junctions are shown "flat". This makes the loop appear much larger than it actually is. -- NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, my aborted work is at User:NE2/BW7; I may get back to it soon. -- NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you need to ditch that {{
fact}}
tag for the bus connections on
Far Rockaway (LIRR station), and you do, the source you can site is MTA's "The Map." The official LIRR page on that station confirms it too(
http://lirr42.mta.info/stationinfo.asp?station=099). The only trouble is, I don't know how to write it out. ----
DanTD
01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On the
BMT Broadway Line page, someone has very scrupulously footnoted the opening date for every station, and inserted {{
fact}}
tags for every station where the date couldn't be verified from the New York Times archive. Likwise, {{
fact}}
tags were inserted in the corresponding individual station articles, next to the station opening date in the Infobox.
I have a few observations about this. The vast majority of the station opening dates for the subway project were taken from nycsubway.org. Wikipedia requires cited sources, but not necessarily the New York Times. If nycsubway.org states an opening date, and it is not manifestly erroneous or contradicted by other/better sources, then that's an acceptable source. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with someone citing an even more authoritative source. But if the statement is sourced from an independent website, the citation requirement is met.
On the page for
Whitehall Street–South Ferry (BMT Broadway Line), I initially removed the {{
fact}}
tag on the station opening date in the infobox, and replaced it with a footnote. The resultant edit (
here) looked dumb, because the footnote duplicated the external reference to the nycsubway.org page. I therefore removed the footnote. There are hundreds of pages dedicated to individual stations, and they all have opening dates, so this is something the project should be consistent about.
Lastly, the page for
BMT Broadway Line includes a footnote or {{
fact}}
tag against every station opening date in the station listing table. I think this makes the station data table look ugly. All of those opening dates are also footnoted in the narrative section of the article, and I don't see any need to footnote them again. I would rely on the footnotes in the narrative (where they fit better), and not duplicate them in the table.
Marc Shepherd
12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
should be used only where there is a purported factual statement for which there is no source. It should not be used for a factual statement that has a source, but just not the source that's ideally wanted. If a source is contradicted by other known facts, then of course clearly that source should be disregarded. Obviously nycsubway.org is known to be less reliable for pre-1904 lines, and an editor should take that into account.
Marc Shepherd
11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Every article that describes one of the New York City Subway lines is meant to have a "Station listing" table, which lists all the stations and various attributes about them. Some of the articles do not yet have a table, but in the ones that do, there is considerable variety. Actually, the only two points in common are that the station name and opening date are always listed.
Here are some more detailed observations:
Here's a proposal for standardizing on the following column headings and usage:
Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
– Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Services | |
---|---|
Local | Express |
Tracks | Services | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E | F | G | R | V |
{{NYCS 1}}
), which now have regrettably been deleted. (The fact that recently added service references are unbolded makes them even harder to find.)After a second look, my sense is that IND Eighth Avenue Line is the best one we have. I would be perfectly happy to adopt the station table in that article as the gold standard for all of them. Marc Shepherd
This is a companion analysis to the previous thread. Most of the service articles have station listing tables too, and they are somewhat analogous to those in the line articles. There is a lot less variation, but nevertheless, we are not consistent.
In a majority of the service articles, the station listing tables are structured as follows:
Here's a proposal for standardizing the column headings and usage:
I've one additional observation: Most of the line articles put subway transfers and connections in one column (generally headed "Transfers and notes"), while most of the service articles have separate columns. I think it looks better when they're separate, and perhaps that means that my proposal in the previous thread should be modified. In the line articles, the "services" column could be replaced with one or more service legend columns, as these seem to work quite well. Marc Shepherd 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The template {{
rollsign}}
is intended to duplicate old-time rollsigns, i.e., those pre-dating the current NYCTA color scheme. This template is used on many of the service articles, and has been for a very long time. There are several issues:
My sense is that {{
rollsign}}
is over-used, and isn't even that interesting, attractive, or informative. Anyone else have that reaction?
Marc Shepherd
02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For discussion:
and corresponding talk page. Marc Shepherd 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If it was from any source other than the NY Times, I wouldn't even mention it here, but you need to wonder where are they getting their info, and is there some peculiarity that is unknown here? see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html. When referring to the findings of Howard Roberts, the president of the NYCT, it says:
Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.
Weel, what do you think?
- Seidenstud 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that {{ Infobox NYCS service}} should be expanded with more parameters. Here's an idea for some additional parameters (in no order):
I think that the infoboxes should also be available to be used for defunct services as well. Another parameter could be used for when the service ended. I wouldn't mind going ahead and adding the changes, but I just wanted to get some opinions here first. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Marc; number of stations varies based on time of day. For instance, the A is fully local at night, and some services have multiple terminals. Length is also affected by the latter issue. Almost all services operate at all "normal" times, so I don't think that would be very useful. And when they don't operate, there is usually a replacement - for instance the C could be said to operate 24 hours, just extended and renamed A at night. Former names and creation date are mostly possible, but there are enough weird cases that it's probably not worth assigning a single number. For instance, the pattern that evolved into the 1 was formed in 1904 when the first subway opened, but changed first to run via the "H" system in 1918, was extended into Brooklyn in 1919, and finally sent to South Ferry in 1959. I believe the number 1 was assigned internally in the 1930s. After a bit of thought, I think most of the BMT services (some of the ex-steam lines have a number of possibilities), almost all the IND services (the B/C swap complicates things, as do the B and D extensions into Brooklyn), and the IRT 4-7 have clear dates. -- NE2 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS time 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. — Dream out loud ( talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone direct me to the discussion (if there was one) where it was decided to remove navboxes from the bottom of the individual station articles? Marc Shepherd 12:51, 21 June 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
User:Eric B (who coincidentally is the author of Car History and Line by Line History) pointed me to some nice sources about past IRT and BMT history: [1] and [2]. I think we can use these as references and reinstate all original service history sections that were removed. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS time has been replaced by template:NYCS time 2. The new one takes the following parameters:
Template:NYCS br is a template used only inside the service templates; it formats the uses so a new line is added only when time=full or time=text.
Here are some examples with template:NYCS Lexington:
Usage | ||
---|---|---|
no time parameter | 4, 5, 6, and <6> | Used in ordinary text, like "the IRT Lexington Avenue Line ( 4, 5, 6, and <6>) is the busiest rapid transit line..." |
time=show | 4 5 6 <6> | Used for transfers and next stations in infoboxes, such as on Lexington Avenue–63rd Street and 103rd Street |
time=full |
4
(all times) 5 (all times except late nights) 6 (all times) <6> (weekdays until 8:45 p.m., peak direction) |
Used for services in infoboxes, such as on 125th Street |
time=text |
4 (all times) 5 (all times except late nights) 6 (all times) <6> (weekdays until 8:45 p.m., peak direction) |
Used for transfers on service articles and services on line articles; see V (New York City Subway service)#Station listing and IRT Lexington Avenue Line#Station listing |
and for the G on Queens Boulevard:
time=show | G |
time=full | G (nights after 9:00 p.m. and weekends) |
time=text | G (nights after 9:00 p.m. and weekends) |
-- NE2 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I really don't think it is a good idea to put large amount of text in the table, as what I see at V (New York City Subway service). It increases the verbosity of the table, making one have to "read" it. I remember doing something like this last summer, which was incidentally frowned upon because of the same reason. So I think that what I did at 1 (New York City Subway service) would work better. Look and see. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:NC#Special characters, the endashes (–) need to be removed from the station article titles and replaced with hyphens (-). All articles originally had hyphens, but they were changed to endashes, and now they need to be changed back. Some of them have been changed back, but there are many more to go. I've started to do some myself, but there are way too many, and I think we may need a bot for this. – Crashintome4196 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are fewer station article names with their suffixes removed, courtesy of NE2. Rather than start an edit war where he assumes his ideas are "better", I've decided to bring it up myself to prevent things from getting out of control. What's best, to include it or not to include it? -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Most articles about railway/subway stations are expected to have a disambiguator. This is what I tried to say before. Unless the name is so obvious that it is a station or transportation complex ( Grand Central Terminal, Frankford Transportation Center), removing the disambiguator will lead to the inconsistency of some stations having the disambiguator and some without. Few people complain that the disambiguator is extraneous.
What about the following articles?
These articles are by choice disambiguated to their respective transit systems. Do you suggest the disambiguators for these should be removed as well? (Don't go changing those articles based on my suggestion!)
I oppose the removal of disambiguators for NYC Subway articles. "(New York City Subway)" should also be restored to articles that indicate a street intersection. I am aware of guidelines, and I would ignore the rules here.
However, people have been passionate about precision. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) : there was a heated debate whether TV series episodes need to be disambiguated (e.g. Unfriendly Skies (CSI episode) versus Unfriendly Skies). Through arbitration, it was decided to disambiguate when necessary; therefore, the latter name in the example is the current title. Do I think that is analogous to this station situation? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I lean towards no. And I certainly don't want to go to arbitration to determine consensus. Tinlinkin 12:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have news for you, NE2. If you don't want to be called a dick, stop acting like one. If people didn't act as such, we wouldn't need any other policies. That said, just about every page you moved will have its original title reinstated, except your credibility will be damaged. I suggest you learn to work with others instead of acting reckless. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Geoking66 placed bullets in some station infoboxes, like in [3]. I reverted, since this is one more thing that needs to be changed when the TA changes services. However, this can be done automatically with a simple change to template:NYCS time 2 and template:infobox NYCS. Do you think this is a good idea? -- NE2 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I like it. It is a little flashy, but as long as it's done in a tidy fashion. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribns} 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a continuation from a discussion above at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Notes about new time template.
The subway transfers at V are listed in a highly verbose way. For instance, this:
versus this:
The table at V is far more bloated than the one at 1. Look at the tables from the MTA website. They are not at all hard to use. A proposal was made back in November to use a very similar format to theirs. They use icons in place of long verbiage in the style of "all times except late nights (12:00 midnight-6:00 a.m.)". However, they do omit time information and simply list services.
Also, coming to think of it, putting bus connections in the subway articles themselves isn't the best solution either. Wikipedia is hardly the go-to source for travel information in New York City, so it is not terribly important to include complete bus connection information. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, NE2, we had a specific problem like this where a very similar suggestion like the table at V is extremely wordy. A discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7/Archive 2#Station service. I understand that Consensus can change, but I don't think we should use the same table format that people may disapprove of again. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we use Template:Infobox Station to replace commuter rail station infoboxes such as Template:Infobox LIRR? See Hempstead (LIRR station) and Hicksville (LIRR station) for the generic infoboxes (and compare with Babylon (LIRR station)). Tinlinkin 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you guys mentioned an image used for the infobox, using station signage. I remember a discussion thread stating Flamurai's idea on GIF images. They do render horribly, and it is the Wikimedia Foundation's goal to present free images to the community. That is why we should create SVG images of the signage, if we decide to go along with it. I was proposing something like this for the longest, except I wasn't yet introduced to free use images. I do, however, fail to see how Image:Mastic-shirley-lirr.gif is fair use. Fonts of any kind are not copyrightable, and adding outlines and whatnot is are not enough to create authorship. The subway bullets, as well as pictures of signage are also so simple that they are probably public domain. I myself would think it is a good idea to use a station signage imitation for the name parameter in {{ Infobox NYCS}}. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to the Commons, let me know. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Myrtle–Willoughby Avenues | |
---|---|
A | B |
style= <choice of LIRR, MNRR (for multiple lines), MNRR Hudson, MNRR Harlem, MNRR New Haven, MNRR Pascack Valley, and MNRR Port Jervis>
.
Tinlinkin
10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)type=[[Metro-North Railroad|Metro-North]] and [[Amtrak]] station
for identifying the multiple operators.
Fordham is possibly problematic for a style, but since the Harlem Line is the dominant service, that is what I would use.
Tinlinkin
19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)I have implemented the suggestions for the NYCS stations, including the addition of service bullets. What do you all think? Tinlinkin 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is the proof that the line south of Ditmas Avenue is called "IND Culver Line" and not "BMT Culver Line"? I know right now, it is served by an IND Subway Line, but before the connection between Church and Ditmas Avenues was built and the forming of the Culver Shuttle, it was part of the BMT because it connected to the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger ( talk • contribs)
-- Imdanumber1 ( talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Our templates are a little too complicated; List of New York City Subway stations ran up against template limits. Don't do anything drastic; it may be possible to simply use a few sub-templates inside the if statements. If people feel something needs to be done now, reversing the recent changes to add bullets to the infoboxes is enough until we fix the coding. So we should decide if we should temporarily revert that, or deal with the bigger problem. -- NE2 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{NYCS Queens | time=show | omit=F}}
. But there may be other ways.Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue ♿ | |
---|---|
A | B |
I modified Template:NYCS br to use #switch rather than nested #ifs and both pages now work. There are probably some other places we can convert to #switch. -- NE2 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The two pages should now display properly. Tinlinkin 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the "image_caption" parameter to Template:Infobox NYCS. If somebody knows what the captions for pictures in the station infoboxes should be, as shown by example with 125th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), please add those. Tinlinkin 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, yes, I know, I'm sorry. The reason I bring this up is because NE2 systematically changes the List of New York City Subway stations page, for example: he calls one station "Second Avenue" because it is the common name, as seen on signs, while Lower East Side–Second Avenue is used on schedules, the map, and line info for the F and V. I keep telling him that just because he finds Second Avenue only w/o LES on Google searches doesn't mean that that is the "common" name. Google searches for names within the news is NOT the end-all, be-all go to guide for the MTA's naming choice. Any tips to help NE2? He is not doing anything but self destructing the project by bullying others with guideline overkill. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk · contribs) 11:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not expressing a view as to the correct outcome. I am not even sure which station names are in dispute.
But I do think the project should arrive at a consensus for how stations will be named. And that consensus should be based on verifiable facts. The MTA is not always consistent, so whatever standard you use, it will be possible to find legitimate reference sources that disagree. Marc Shepherd 13:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a navigation template like Template:NYSubway3 to put at the bottom of station articles a good idea? Tinlinkin 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed he has been recently discussing and editing other users' talk pages? The Legendary Ranger 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated quite a few templates for deletion (and also a category for renaming):
-- Tinlinkin 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the renaming of the stub category and template is kind of a big deal. Already one of our members already expressed some ambiguity about the proposed renaming! Tinlinkin 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
From Talk:1 (New York City Subway service), a proposal has been raised that BMT service articles of the form "BMT number" (such as BMT 13) should be renamed to "number (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service)". I agree with this renaming. Thoughts? Tinlinkin 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying my hand of late creating Railway line templates (our new shiny German import) for a few lines, including NJT's NEC and Raritan Valley lines. If anyone here could give a look at {{ Raritan Valley Line}} and {{ Northeast Corridor Line}} and give me feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it. (The RVL template is currently on all relevant pages; the NEC template is only on the North Elizabeth page for now.) Some judgement calls were involved in the creation of these templates, (especially the representation of the New York approaches) and I'd especially welcome comments on that. Thanks in advance, — CComMack ( t– c) 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
|
My attempt at shrinking can be seen on the right and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Railway line template#Shrunken version. -- NE2 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, make changes at Template:NYCS B'way-7th Av Line. – Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a double-width line for a local/express portion would be nice; I may create one. -- NE2 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon User:Oosoom/Map_icons, where I found the icons like the following: File:BSicon vABZrg.svg [renamed from BSicon_vBHFa.svg in 21013] . I assume the official documentation still needs to be translated, but I guess these represent local and express services. IF AND ONLY IF the official German documentation for these symbols is fully translated into English would I dare use these in the railway template format. Otherwise, we do have the multiple column format, which is more than adequate. Tinlinkin 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried my hand at {{
IND Eighth Avenue Line}}
and {{
IND Sixth Avenue Line}}
. Follow the links; I haven't transcluded them. The Sixth Avenue Line was considerably more difficult to portray, due to all the branching at both its northern and southern ends.
Marc Shepherd
20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll have it ready by tomorrow. I'll work on the BMT Canarsie Line. – Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
IRT Lexington Avenue Line}}
. Now, let's see how any of these fit into the articles.
Marc Shepherd
10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)I don't think it's necessary to show such detail on the loops; the diagrams are basically showing every track at South Ferry, when other junctions are shown "flat". This makes the loop appear much larger than it actually is. -- NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, my aborted work is at User:NE2/BW7; I may get back to it soon. -- NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you need to ditch that {{
fact}}
tag for the bus connections on
Far Rockaway (LIRR station), and you do, the source you can site is MTA's "The Map." The official LIRR page on that station confirms it too(
http://lirr42.mta.info/stationinfo.asp?station=099). The only trouble is, I don't know how to write it out. ----
DanTD
01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On the
BMT Broadway Line page, someone has very scrupulously footnoted the opening date for every station, and inserted {{
fact}}
tags for every station where the date couldn't be verified from the New York Times archive. Likwise, {{
fact}}
tags were inserted in the corresponding individual station articles, next to the station opening date in the Infobox.
I have a few observations about this. The vast majority of the station opening dates for the subway project were taken from nycsubway.org. Wikipedia requires cited sources, but not necessarily the New York Times. If nycsubway.org states an opening date, and it is not manifestly erroneous or contradicted by other/better sources, then that's an acceptable source. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with someone citing an even more authoritative source. But if the statement is sourced from an independent website, the citation requirement is met.
On the page for
Whitehall Street–South Ferry (BMT Broadway Line), I initially removed the {{
fact}}
tag on the station opening date in the infobox, and replaced it with a footnote. The resultant edit (
here) looked dumb, because the footnote duplicated the external reference to the nycsubway.org page. I therefore removed the footnote. There are hundreds of pages dedicated to individual stations, and they all have opening dates, so this is something the project should be consistent about.
Lastly, the page for
BMT Broadway Line includes a footnote or {{
fact}}
tag against every station opening date in the station listing table. I think this makes the station data table look ugly. All of those opening dates are also footnoted in the narrative section of the article, and I don't see any need to footnote them again. I would rely on the footnotes in the narrative (where they fit better), and not duplicate them in the table.
Marc Shepherd
12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
should be used only where there is a purported factual statement for which there is no source. It should not be used for a factual statement that has a source, but just not the source that's ideally wanted. If a source is contradicted by other known facts, then of course clearly that source should be disregarded. Obviously nycsubway.org is known to be less reliable for pre-1904 lines, and an editor should take that into account.
Marc Shepherd
11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Every article that describes one of the New York City Subway lines is meant to have a "Station listing" table, which lists all the stations and various attributes about them. Some of the articles do not yet have a table, but in the ones that do, there is considerable variety. Actually, the only two points in common are that the station name and opening date are always listed.
Here are some more detailed observations:
Here's a proposal for standardizing on the following column headings and usage:
Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
– Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Services | |
---|---|
Local | Express |
Tracks | Services | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E | F | G | R | V |
{{NYCS 1}}
), which now have regrettably been deleted. (The fact that recently added service references are unbolded makes them even harder to find.)After a second look, my sense is that IND Eighth Avenue Line is the best one we have. I would be perfectly happy to adopt the station table in that article as the gold standard for all of them. Marc Shepherd
This is a companion analysis to the previous thread. Most of the service articles have station listing tables too, and they are somewhat analogous to those in the line articles. There is a lot less variation, but nevertheless, we are not consistent.
In a majority of the service articles, the station listing tables are structured as follows:
Here's a proposal for standardizing the column headings and usage:
I've one additional observation: Most of the line articles put subway transfers and connections in one column (generally headed "Transfers and notes"), while most of the service articles have separate columns. I think it looks better when they're separate, and perhaps that means that my proposal in the previous thread should be modified. In the line articles, the "services" column could be replaced with one or more service legend columns, as these seem to work quite well. Marc Shepherd 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The template {{
rollsign}}
is intended to duplicate old-time rollsigns, i.e., those pre-dating the current NYCTA color scheme. This template is used on many of the service articles, and has been for a very long time. There are several issues:
My sense is that {{
rollsign}}
is over-used, and isn't even that interesting, attractive, or informative. Anyone else have that reaction?
Marc Shepherd
02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For discussion:
and corresponding talk page. Marc Shepherd 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If it was from any source other than the NY Times, I wouldn't even mention it here, but you need to wonder where are they getting their info, and is there some peculiarity that is unknown here? see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html. When referring to the findings of Howard Roberts, the president of the NYCT, it says:
Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.
Weel, what do you think?
- Seidenstud 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that {{ Infobox NYCS service}} should be expanded with more parameters. Here's an idea for some additional parameters (in no order):
I think that the infoboxes should also be available to be used for defunct services as well. Another parameter could be used for when the service ended. I wouldn't mind going ahead and adding the changes, but I just wanted to get some opinions here first. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Marc; number of stations varies based on time of day. For instance, the A is fully local at night, and some services have multiple terminals. Length is also affected by the latter issue. Almost all services operate at all "normal" times, so I don't think that would be very useful. And when they don't operate, there is usually a replacement - for instance the C could be said to operate 24 hours, just extended and renamed A at night. Former names and creation date are mostly possible, but there are enough weird cases that it's probably not worth assigning a single number. For instance, the pattern that evolved into the 1 was formed in 1904 when the first subway opened, but changed first to run via the "H" system in 1918, was extended into Brooklyn in 1919, and finally sent to South Ferry in 1959. I believe the number 1 was assigned internally in the 1930s. After a bit of thought, I think most of the BMT services (some of the ex-steam lines have a number of possibilities), almost all the IND services (the B/C swap complicates things, as do the B and D extensions into Brooklyn), and the IRT 4-7 have clear dates. -- NE2 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:NYCS time 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. — Dream out loud ( talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone direct me to the discussion (if there was one) where it was decided to remove navboxes from the bottom of the individual station articles? Marc Shepherd 12:51, 21 June 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |