Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 1

message: I've been told that the nature of the current subway system as the conjoining of historically separate systems helps to explain the complexity of some of the stations: I certainly recall walking down long tunnels, and up stairs, and thinking that it was quite a mess in parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.184.25 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The lines are not redundant. The BMT served Brooklyn and Queens and the IRT Manhattan and the Bronx. Most of the overlap were the respective mainlines of eacb company. On two Queens lines they shared trackage. Much of the IND was built to compete with some of the elevated lines, but this was intentional. Metamorphosis 13:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're in agreement - the main lines aren't redundant since they are needed to get all the branch lines into midtown and downtown. Donald Friedman 4 April 2004
Also it seems that it could be broken up into sections better.  Specifically, the paragraph beginning with Subway tunnels were constructed using a variety of methods seems out of place.--Jason McHuff 07:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The articles with all include (New York Subway) in the title need to be condensed into a category, with a menu bar to help move around them easier. This is a HUGE task, though (as there SEEMS to be articles on most of the stations -- a huge number). Any ideas on the best way to go about this? --Wolf530 03:30, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
: Sounds like you are more talking about the creation of a template than a category. -- Jmabel 04:52, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
: I don't understand exactly what you're asking, but you might be interested in looking at what we've done for Melbourne railway stations as an example for organising such things. Ambivalenthysteria 04:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I suggest looking at Washington Metro and its associated pages. I'll look around the New York pages and see what I can do. --Golbez 19:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Subway needs Category 

message: Wouldn't an image help? I'm quite undecided on which type to put.
--GatesPlusPlus 10:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Took the liberty of adding a station picture. I have lots more, of cars, underground and outdoor stations. --Dschwen 15:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Comparable entries have lots more pictures. I'll pile up a few on this page and wait for some reactions whether to include them or not. --Dschwen 19:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of pictures would be great! If you have a good variety, I think it would be best to show the diversity of the system, since so much of the "subway" is not underground. Smith-9th is a great view, maybe a picture on the Sea Beach Line (open cut), Brighton Line (embankment), elevated shots (many, many locations), on the Williamsburg Bridge, crossing Jamaica Bayy. Lots of possibilties. Or, you've seen one dark tunnel, you've seen 'em all. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I added a New York Subway section to the Commons:New York City page and put them there. I'm afraid, there are less pictures than you have good ideas ;-) --Dschwen 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  I'm back in New York and will be here for one more day. I'll try to work your list. Today I hiked across W'burg Bridge. there might be some fresh pics coming up. If someone from NY wants to have a cup of coffee, let me know :-) --Dschwen 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  New pics here commons:User:Dschwen/Pending_pictures/New_York_Subway --Dschwen 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Being that New York City Subway is the full and proper name of the system, _not_ New York Subway, I think this page should be renamed and the redirects reversed, so that "New York Subway" redirects to "New York City Subway." Anybody agree? --oknazevad 17:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what would be the "full and proper" name for the system. New York City Subway System may come closer, the operating agency is properly New York City Transit Authority, some use the "popular name" New York City Transit, some just say the Subway, etc. It's the only subway system in the entire state of New York, so what do people outside New York typically call it? That should probably be the name of the article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean by "full and proper" is that if you look at the name on the top of the official subway map, it is called the MTA New York City Subway. Almost all MTA writings also call it that. Also, it's not the only subway in all of New York State as Bufallo does have a single-line system. And, in my estimation, most people outside of New York can't make heads or tails of the system in the first place. Well, maybe not. It's actually not that bad. New Yorkers and Jerseyans usually just call it "the subway", but the fact that it refers to the NYC Subway is implied. I'm not sure what people from elsewher call it, though.--oknazevad 22:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't see any reason to object to changing it to "New York City Subway," except that there are maybe 150 pages linking to "New York Subway," so there are a lot of double-reds to eliminate to keep things Kosher. As to Buffalo, I don't think anyone would really think that anyone would go to a "New York Subway" link excepting to end up a stone's throw from Niagara Falls. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: Eh, if there's no more input, how about this: In five days, if no one objects, I'm going to move it to New York City Subway. I'll do the same with all the route pages. All double redirects will be fixed. Where necessary, the categories will be listed for renaming to conform both to this naming and to other naming conventions. --SPUI 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: New York City Subway seems fine to me.  --CComMack 10:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[New York City Subway]]?

message: The TA has announced suspension of direct "A" service to Rockaway Park due to the emergency; i.e., all "A" trains will go to either Lefferts or Far Rockaway. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'll add that to the section on Eighth Avenue Line about the fire. --SPUI 20:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rockaway Park "A" note

message: Do people think the table of routes should be updated to show temporary service due to the fire on the Eighth Avenue Line? Also, what do people think about the move to a template for the table? Personally I think it should stay; the guy that moved it did it mainly for page length concerns. --SPUI 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the table should be updated for the fire, since this is something that is ongoing for months. I wouldn't kill the C page, just note it's not running and why. If this were a GO for a week or two, that would be different, but...  (Definition of an optimist: someone who lists Third Avenue el service as "suspended.") -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely not suggesting to kill the C page; I think pages should eventually be created on dead services (like the 8). Of course I'd put most of the relevant info in an article on the line, but the service page would list what lines it ran along and a few other things of note. --SPUI 04:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should have pages on eliminated services. I also think we should have histories, or at least timelines, of the letters where they describe services which have changed. Some are relatively minor, like the B and C switching uptown destinations, but there are some big changes, like the D switching southern lines at least three times (via Culver, via Brighton, now via West End) or the 8 (which you mentioned) was originally for the IRT Astoria service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd help with that if I had complete info on the changes. I didn't realize that the 8 was originally the Astoria Line; I had only known about the 8 shown on . --SPUI 04:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the table for the fire?

message: I've created this WikiProject; discussion not specifically related to this page should probably go there. --SPUI 22:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway|WikiProject New York City Subway]]

message: Just wanted to comment that I consider the given map horrible. While it might conform to the tracks that are listed, keep in mind that people who would find a map useful do not care about the places where the tracks go; they care about the lines. Why aren't the 4/5/6 lines even drawn in green? Can't we get a map that conforms at least a little bit to the way people use this subway network? --Edisk 05:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I overspoke; I just looked at the map again and I understand the way it is, so I take back a lot of the intensity of my two-minute-ago comment. It seems to me that this map is more about the technical workings of the subway system. Maybe we could supplement it with one that is a little bit less technical? Do you think that nycsubway.org would let us use a map, or something of the sort? (And I'm sorry about the tone I took in my last talk post.) --Edisk 05:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I think that using 1863 as the beginning date is very misleading if you are going to use the term: New York City Subway.
Since we are contributing to an encyclopedia we should be quite specific with the facts and not stretch the point just to make it fit.
The date of 1904 is not arbitrary - it is a fact.  The first subway line in NYC opened that year.  Anything prior to that is not considered a subway (except for Alfred Beach's pneumatic line ).
Also New York City did not exist as a city of 5 boroughs until 1898.
If you want to say that "rapid transit in what would become GReater New York began in 1863" then that would be more acccurate.
Anyway, I am glad to be here and contribute whatever I can.
Allan
:If we're going to use "New York City Subway", by your argument, 1904 makes no more sense. 1904 was the IRT subway; the term "New York City Subway" for the full system didn't come until much later. The use of the railroad infoboxes (on articles in general) is rather arbitrary anyway - some of the dates are for the predecessors, while some are for just the one company, and the former doesn't always make sense when the predecessors and the current company share a lot in common and are thus both on the same article. In this case, if we're going to go by the predecessors, there's no reason to stop at 1904, when we can go all the way back to the first right-of-way constantly in use. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point might be clearer if this article had been titled New York City Subway System. But I really don't think we need another retitling. I understand the conceptual problem with using 1863, but 1904 would have different problems: e.g., the Jamaica (J) Line is unequivocally considered a New York City "Subway" Line today, but the entire elevated section over Broadway in Brooklyn was open by 1888. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using 1904 because it is the opening  of the first real subway line? (the modern subway?)  Moreover, they did just celebrate 100 years.  And see October 27 and 1904.  Overall, I do see the problem--that the system has ended up including older, pre-1905 elevated sections--Jason McHuff 06:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting date of the subway 

message: Anybody have an idea of how to integrate the MTA counterterrorism measures, such as their ban on photography, into the article?  --Alphachimp 04:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The threat of the ban (it was never formally adopted) has been dropped for now. The MTA announced that the police already have the power to question those taking pictures under "suspicious" circumstances (such as two dudes who were photographing a tunnel entrance in Queens and turned out to be Iranian agents) so it is not necessary to have a blanket ban. So you may still be questioned if you are taking pictures at say, a junction, but you can't be stopped from photographing in general or have your pictures confiscated without specific cause. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Shows what happens when you leave the city for a couple of months to go to college.  We should still write something about MTA counterterrorism after 9/11, such as gas masks for all TA conductors and motormen, and armed National Guard patrols on the trains.  --Alphachimp 05:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYC Subway Photography Ban 

message: Does anybody know the font/typeface that is used for the text in all those NYC subway signs? It looks like Geneva or Helvetica to me.
iIrc, it has been Akzidenz Grotesk in the recent past, but new signs are in the closely related and hard-to-distinguish Helvetica.  --CComMack 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign Font? 

message: Take a look at what was added by Descent to the "Popular Culture":
"Recently there has been some outcry over talks of a petition to ban all photography and filming of subway cars, lines, and stations for security reasons without permission from the MTA or city government. Along with new fines for sitting on the stairs, placing feet on open subway car chairs, and changing cars during travel, many native New Yorkers see this as a threat to their daily lives and just another step into making New York a complete police state."
Aside from the fact that it could be better worded I object to the use of "police state" only to the extent that Descent seems to be making a political statement rather than an informational entry into an encyclopedia.
It is obviously his/her opinion and I don't believe it has a place in the article.
What do you think?
--Allan 20:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: *I have created a page for the Nostrand Av Line, with fully marked-up station listings. 
*I have added fully marked up station listings to the E P'kway Line as well.
*I note a problem on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_stations in that there already exist pages for the 2 IRT boro hall stations -- and their addresses don't agree with what I see here.
**East Side IRT (Lexington Avenue) Borough Hall station 
**West Side IRT (Broadway-7th Avenue) Borough Hall station
*My 4Av Line page is complete. I will still do niggling things,and may make the page somewhat less rigidly structured.
My talk page is active.--FourthAve 04:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: E P'way & Nostrand Line additions; 4Av Line note

message: IND_Fulton_Street_Line All the stations are there, and one hopes, in the correct order. It needs additional work. I do not really know the history. --FourthAve 05:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New IND Fulton St Line Page

message: --I just noticed that the article on the Philadelphia subway uses the official SEPTA map under the "fair use" of the copyright. Is there any reason we can't do the same here with the official MTA map? --Jleon 17:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTA Map 

message: Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union is threatening to go on strike. Should we include this in our article here?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strike Watch

message: Should the page be "Current event?" Should there also be a page on the upcoming strike and contingency plans? --Blue387 08:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strike declared 

message: I made a new infobox as a suggestion. It can be found Infobox#New_York_City_Subway|here.
*Please send me your suggestions.
I like it.  It looks cleaner than the current version but others may feel that having the information in boxes is easier to follow.
--Allan 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new infobox looks good. --Aude 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox 

message: I removed this ", and it distinguishes them from subway car models built for other purposes." from the article because there are no subway car models built for other purposes.  Even the pumper cars purchased a few years back (which look like R62 cars but with only one set of doors on each side) are known as R127 cars.
I aslo modified what the R is supposed to mean.  There is a lot of arguement amongst railfans.  While I feel that it stands for "Revenue" (based on what the IND used for) others feel it stands for "Rolling Stock".  Considering that they use the "R" on any contract that involves work cars, subway cars, and anything to support them it is possible that the term has evolved into "Rolling Stock".
--Allan 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling stock item 

message: Back in April of 2005 when I changed the start date from 1863 to 1904, it was changed back to 1863 almost within the next day.  The reason given was that while the subway opened in 1904 one of the ROW of a precessor RR in Brooklyn opened in 1863.  I accepted that reasoning although I felt it can cause confusion.  Someone later added a note link.
On 12/16/05 someone with the ISP 144.42.9.104 changed it to 1904 and no one challenged it.  I saw it this morning and changed it back to 1863.
I did, however added one sentence in the box: "The subway opened in 1904 but certain predecessor RR lines opened in 1863".  Maybe this will help end the confusion.
I'll leave the final decision to you.
--Allan 14:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of service issue 

message: I removed this from the History section of the main article as it is not correct.  City Hall opened the same day as the others on the original line.  The station wall are not made mostly of tile.  As with most other stations they are concrete with a tile face.  I have been to the City Hall station a few times and have never seen tiles showing a small represetation of City Hall.  Krashlandon (the user who posted the paragraph) is getting confused with the BMT Broadway City Hall station.
Also the last line has no place in the article.  This is an encyclopedia not a travel guide.
There is enough information on the City Hall page that it doesn't need to be on the main article page.
Text removed:
"The first public station to be opened was the City Hall Station on Lexington Avenue, which has since been closed to service and made historic. The station walls were mostly made of tile showing a small representation of City Hall. City Hall Station is a great place to visit if you are lucky enough to be allowed in, as it is a great piece of history. "
--Allan 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Hall confusion 

message: I was very impressed with Geoking66's new infobox design; in order to streamline the infobox-adding process a bit, I've created a template based on it: Infobox NYCS. A warning: It is a little complicated at first glance; however, it is really not exceptionally difficult to understand. If anyone has any questions or comments about the infobox, feel free to ask me. —Larry V 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: Currently, articles are titled like 6 (New York City Subway service).  Isn't service a little redundant?  For me at least, it seems that there's less of a need to be so specific.  Take Persephone from The Matrix, for instance; rather than have Persephone (Matrix character) it is now titled Persephone (The Matrix).  Also, the Washington Metro subpages are named with just a (Washington Metro) on it; there's no (Washington Metro station at the end of it. - Hbdragon88 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you are coming from on this one. This makes a lot of sense for stations: "42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway station)" would instead be "42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway)", for instance. For the services, however, it may be a tad unclear, because they are only denoted by letters and numbers. A typical Washington Metro article is "Red Line (Washington Metro)". This title makes it abundantly clear that the article is about a line. Something like "6 (New York City Subway)" doesn't make it quite clear what "6" is, exactly, so I'm not so sure about that particular class of articles. However, I do think that all station articles' titles would be better without the appendage "station." —Larry V 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make the same point at Talk:Port_Authority_Trans-Hudson#Infobox, but the other editors wanted to be consistent with how the NY Subway articles are names (e.g.42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway station) rather than Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro)).  Other subway system articles are also inconsistent, with Lubyanka (Metro) in Moscow, Paddington station in London, MacArthur (BART) and Balboa Park Station in San Francisco...  It's not a big deal either way, but would be nice if the various subway system articles followed the same naming conventions.  I would favor going with how Washington Metro, and Moscow Metro name the station articles (shorter names = better).  -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service? 

message: Why no reference to the movie Money Train? It has more NYC subway action than most of the movies mentioned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113845/
Looking at the others I can only think of one reason - there is no Wiki page set up for the movie (I couldn't find one).
--Allan 17:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Money Train'' 

message: I would just like to see what the general feeling is regarding the names of stations as given in the article infoboxes. Do you think that the ordinal suffixes should be included (e.g., "42nd Street–Times Square") or left off (e.g., "42 Street–Times Square")? I personally think that they should be included. The name is "Forty-Second Street," not "Forty-Two Street." The MTA refers to stations like this in official documents; anywhere where they are left off are usually to preserve space (e.g, The Map and tables in documents). I also believe that they are left off of station signage so as not to confuse non-English speakers—and I have to assume that people who are reading the English Wikipedia speak English. —Larry V (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming under infoboxes 

message: Why is it that many contributers just have to have EVERYTHING in the main article.  It just clutters things up.
I just removed text on Fare collection and the future of the MetroCard.  The person who contributed that text also put it on the MetroCard page.  It is fine there because it pertains specifically to that subject.
--Allan 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article clutter 

message: Hi folks. I just started the article John Tauranac. The bio in the back of the book I was using says he was the chief designer on the committee that designed the new NYC subway map in 1979, but this website says it was someone else. Does anyone have any more information as to who was actually responsible for the design? (Also, how this could be worked into either this or some other article - map design is interesting). Thanks! Cantara 01:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created a post with a link to your question on SubChat.com. We'll see if any of those guys knows. —Larry V (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, but I'll post the question itself to Subchat.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question about map designer

message: "The new system will replace decades-old electronics that frequently fail due to flooding."? That seems weird.  Is there a cite for that?  For details of the existing relay-based control system, see NXSYS subway simulator. --Nagle 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's weird about it? The comment about failing or about flooding? —Larry V (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control system upgrade 

message: The article states "the New York City Subway is the only transit system in the world, with the exception of the PATH (which connects New Jersey with Manhattan), and parts of the Chicago 'L', that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." This is not true, as Philadelphia (www.septa.com) and London run busses along the train routes during the late night hours.
Either "transit" should be replaced with a word like "train", or Philadelphia and London should be added to the list.
Kuvopolis 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subway system itself is being referred to; "rapid transit" should fit the bill. —Larry V (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Taken care of. — Larry V (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-hour Transit Systems 

message: I noticed that the infobox gives the number of lines as 27. Should the number of lines given represent the number of physical lines or the number of services? —Larry V (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it is not technically correct, we use the number of identifiably distinct services (but not all variations) to determine the number of "lines." I don't know how meaningful this is: maybe we should say "services." In order to desribe the number of physical lines, we would have to have a pretty well-honed desfinition of what constitutes a "line." Even the NYCTA isn't consistent. Sometimes they treat the line to Brooklyn under Houston Street as the "Houston Street Line," other times they treat it as part of the "Sixth Avenue Line." Historically, the BMT regarded the "Broadway-4th Avenue Subway" as being a single line from 57th Street (or Queensboro Plaza) to 95th Street-Ft. Hamilton, and the branch to Prospect Park as a branch of the Broadway-4th. Now the Broadway Line is one line, the 4th Avenue is another, and the branch to Prospect Park is part of the Brighton Line. And those are just a few examples. -- Cecropia 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of "lines"