Category talk:New York City Subway rolling stock

message: *The table, it's a good suggustion, but, there are more info to add in and the whole entire car specs which would need to be standerlized. Just leave that alone as it is. It's readable and you don't need to be that fancy. I suggusted use the last one for now until everything is standerlized in the right page.
*This spec was copy and edit from diagrams. It's not a big deal. If it's not readable then there is a problem.
*The height/high, width/wide, length/long  leave that alone.
*Leave the fractons alone. It's readable when you type.
*Note, however, that there is no real good reason to be including these car dimensions to the nearest sixteenth of an inch in the first place.  Even if designed that precisely, I doubt that an actual measurement would always agree to that precision.  The nearest inch would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
-Again this was copy from car specs and diagrams and just leave it as it right now.
*The row headers are bold.  Capitalizing each word in addition, another form of emphasis, is overkill, and harder to read.
-How is "overkill" and "harder to read". Do you need glasses? Come on! It's readable. 
One question: Are you subway fan? If not leave it alone! [unsigned comment by anonymous user 72.11.217.20 16:36 UTC 18 September 2005]
:You haven't given any good reasons for any of your formatting.
-What reasons? I give you points about this.[17:53, 18 September 2005 72.11.217.20]
:I don't need to be a fan to edit the pages.  In fact, those who are fanatical about the subject matter are often the worst Wikipedia editors.  They are often unable to step back and see how the article would look to someone less familiar with the subject, not steeped in the jargon, etc.  Gene Nygaard 17:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some points

message: A few comments about the specs list.
*These lists were a real mess when I first found them.  Most of these suggestions are applicable to many other cars in this system.
*The standard Wikipedia header format is to capitalize only the first word (I'm pretty sure it is spelled out in the Manual of Style somewhere), and words that would otherwise be capitalized.  The "specifications" at the end should be lowercase.  (I suppose it could be moved to the first word, with the identification of the cars following.)
*The row headers are bold.  Capitalizing each word in addition, another form of emphasis, is overkill, and harder to read.
*The precision of the conversions should be such so that those who ignore one system of units get basically the same information as those who ignore the other set of units.
*There shouldn't be a comma between the feet and inches.
*The spelling out of feet and inches isn't as big a problem.  I think it would be okay in running text, but lists and tables are cleaner with the symbols used.  It may be worth mentioning that when units of measure are used, the symbols are easier and more widely understood by those whose command of English is less than perfect, something that is especially true in SI where the international symbols are the same in all languages, though the spelled out words may differ.
*The symbol USD for dollars is not used together with the $ sign.  When I've seen those designations used, they most often follow the number, with or without a dollar sign in front of it.  I don't know if that is an official standard or not, but that's what I've seen.  The US$ symbol is a different convention, with the normal placement in front of the number, and my preference in this context.  They should not be run together as USD$.
*The height/high, width/wide, length/long combinations are redundant.  I removed the latter.  See, however, the alternative suggested in the tables below.
*The metals used in the car bodies should not be capitalized, unless it is a trademarked name of a particular alloy by some particular manufacturer.
*The built-up fractions I used are harder to make, but I think they look better.  They should be changed back if there is a problem with them not working right for a significant number of users, but I haven't seen any indication that such is the case. 
:*Note, however, that there is no real good reason to be including these car dimensions to the nearest sixteenth of an inch in the first place.  Even if designed that precisely, I doubt that an actual measurement would always agree to that precision.  The nearest inch would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
*We should consider using a table rather than a list.  Some suggestions follow. Gene Nygaard 12:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of specs

message: The tables on this talk page are much easier to read than the format on the existing R142A (New York City Subway car) page, in my opinion. Tedernst 21:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other opinions 

message: "The R44s came in singles which needed each other to run, much like the "Protestant Marriages" of the R26/27/28/30s."
What does "came in singles" mean?
What is a "protestant marriage"?
 
Singles cars, needs another single car to run.
:: Protestant married subway cars have normal couplers at thier "B" ends. can be coupled and uncoupled like any other railroad car.
Catholic (ie R 32) Married cars have link bars and much be brough into the shop to disconnect (the catholic church has no concept of divorce; only annuling the marrage, or saying it never happened)
the 44s, 143s, ect are sometimes called "Mormon" as they are some polyigamis. Metropod 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R44 article 

message: I added a rewrite template to the R68 artlcle. Too many repeated links, bad grammar, random capitalizations, and overall spotty writing makes this article hard to comprehend. Jimzim66 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R68 Article 

message: I have proposed that these two articles be merged, as there was but one difference between them, which disappeared in GOH. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  R32/R32A Article merge 

message: We should reorganize the R40 into R40S and R40M
They have operated in such groups for nearly their whole life. The MTA's own rosters treat them as such, and have for at least 10 years. 
Considering the fact that we have combined the R32A/R32 and R142A/R142S, it seems highly logical that we would redesignate R40/R40A as such.
MrLincoln (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  R40/R40A Reorganization 

message: After a good amount of research, we have recently discovered that all R36 cars, including the World's Fair types, are designated as such. Therefore, there are a total of 424 R36 cars: 390 WF types, and 34 ML types. At this point, I am now proposing to merge article R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car) with R36 (New York City Subway car) to reflect this discovery. The latter page has also been updated reflecting the official MTA designations.
For reference, you may look at the list of the official designations here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127872292@N06/48294055022/in/album-72157709666433846/
--Davidng913 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of R36 and R36 WF Pages