Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 3

message: If anyone sees edits to any articles regarding service changes set to occur on September 9, 2006, feel free to revert immediately. There is no source for this information. Articles that I've seen affected include D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). Keep an eye out on other articles, too; thanks. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 9, 2006 

message: Any objections to adding Metrocard to the navbox? It would seem pretty logical to me. Alphachimp talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it makes perfect sense. Great thinking! --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYCS Navbox 

message: The IP user, 152.163.100.68, has added unverifable contributions to the D (NYCS service) article. There are no such changes, as I have checked the MTA website for such G. Os. I am not sure how to revert his edits, or else I would. --imdanumber1 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D (New York City Subway service)

message: Great WikiProject here.  I'm actually quite impressed at the quality of some of the station and line articles; I hadn't even thought such articles would exist.  In any case, when checking out the pages of the train stops near where I live, it occurred to me that one thing which might improve the quality of these articles are pictures of the individual stations, or maybe a picture of the neighborhood in which the stations sit.  I could take them if people are interested...would people be interested in that? -- Deville (Talk) 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Ideally, try to snap a photo that captures the station uniquely. Even where the articles have photos, sometimes it's just a picture of train tracks and a platform that could be anywhere. Marc Shepherd 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the changes made to several articles regarding Sept. 9, 2006 subway changes. At some point several IP users keep adding these so called changes to several articles, about how they will affect service, as well as what subway cars will be used. Luckily, after a while, some editors reverted them, only after a while they were doing it again. One editor showed me where they got these ridiculous ideas from, which was a talk page called SubTalk,  where these changes were really fantasy (I'm surprised these IP users took it seriously).
I am glad these changes are on hiatus (for now), as I would have given up. But really, wouldn't they have just enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them? Also, if these service changes were to take affect, it would happen on a Sunday or a Monday, and clearly, Sept. 9th is on a Saturday. However, for now, I have not seen much action from them; I often check on the articles that they edit (or in this case, vandalize). But if these changes were to take affect, I wouldn't be so surprised. --imdanumber1 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The perpetrator is not a rational person. A rational person would back up the claim with a source, and would engage in a dialogue with others working on the subway project. The pertetrator hasn't had "enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them," because the perpetrator doesn't care. Marc Shepherd 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created a page documenting the vandalism here. The Sept 9 vandalism is connected with another form of vandalism. Gimmetrow 12:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: SubTalk is no longer online. A very similar board is at http://www.subchat.com -- Cecropia 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So called September 9, 2006 subway changes

message: Officially, the following station groups are operated as complexes, although not all of them yet have unitary management or supervision. That is the goal, however. In all cases, they all originally were structured - and operated as - stand-alone structures that had nothing to do with their companions. All of the complexes have been assembled over time.
#168th Street
#Yankee Stadium-161 Street
#149th Street-Grand Concourse
#Columbus Circle-59th Street
#Lexington Avenue-59th Street
#Lexington Avenue-51st Street
#Times Square-42nd Street-Port Authority
#Grand Central
#Bryant Park - 42nd Street-5th Avenue
#Herald Square-34th Street
#14th Street-8th Avenue
#14th Street-6th Avenue-7th Avenue
#14th Street-Union Square
#Broadway-Laffayette-Bleeker
#Essex-Delancey
#Canal Street-Chinatown
#Chambers-Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall
#Fulton-Broadway-Nassau
#Roosevelt-Jackson heights-74th Street
#Court Square-Long Island City-Ely Avenue
#Myrtle-Wyckoff
#Broadway Junction
#Franklin Avenue-Fulton Street
#Franklin Avenue-Botanic Garden
#9th Street-4th Avenue
#62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I suggested above, for starters we surely should combine those where it is extremely straightforward (identical name, or stations virtually on top of each other). I can't really see any downside in such cases. The only debatable ones, IMO, are the ones with very lengthy connecting passages, such as 6th-7th Avenues at 14th St. I'm content to leave those separate for now. Marc Shepherd 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking honestly, complexes that have just one name, and one alone should be merged. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 02:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget to add the future South Ferry-Whitehall Street complex. best to be added when construction is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 
Besides, I don't think that the names of the stations should matter whether or not the complexes should be merged. When it comes to transfers, that is what matters. --imdanumber1 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STATION COMPLEXES 

message: Just to let you know that I've created :Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. It's up to you how you want to mention this on the project page, or how to modify it to your needs. Tinlinkin 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be able to finish adding templates to the category at this time. (I've got to get to sleep!) Tinlinkin 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a very good idea, thanks. Anyone else have opinions? alphaChimp laudare 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, not bad. I've been thinking about a way to point users to WP:NYCS, and this is as good as any of them. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always tag article talk pages with a bot run. It'd be pretty easy. alphaChimp laudare 12:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of a category for these pages was on my mind. Thanks to Tinlinkin for taking the lead. Marc Shepherd 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organization, for the win! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, this project is awesome. Do you guys need a bot to do it? (Alphachimpbot comes running.) alphaChimp laudare 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Great job adding the templates! It's good to have them all in one place. --Swift 10:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: If you look at pages like the IRT Jerome Avenue Line article, the Station Listing Table is a stub, compared to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line or the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line and needs more work. I will be creating a station listing table for this article, as well as others that need attention. --imdanumber1 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated the base information as it was not correct (see the discussion for that article).
--Allan 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs

message: User:AEMoreira042281 has created a new navbox called , and has started adding it to many of the subway pages. The problem is that it is quite large, and duplicates quite a bit of the information in . For an example, see 1 (New York City Subway service).
I would suggest that there is no need for two navboxes. If there are important links missing from the one we have, we should add them. If the new navbox is better, we should deprecate the old one. However, there should not be two. Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly believe that the new navbox would best go with the MTA page. However, I like it, but it doesn't go well with New York City Subway-related articles. --imdanumber1 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason I created the second navbox was to present all MTA divisions in one toolbox. However, some of the information in smaller navigation boxes does not seem to fit inside logically. The main purpose of my creating the new navigation box was to provide a link to all MTA divisions within one box (buses, subways, commuter rail, and toll facilities). In short, this toolbox is a generalized toolbox that is also intended to replace the Template:NYCB navbox as well. Thoughts? --AEMoreira042281 00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's huge. NYCT thinks of itself as NYCT, not MTA. Obviously, it's a part of the organization. As it is right now, I don't support this box. alphaChimp laudare 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box is huge. Agai, that might be due to the "huge" MTA service grasp. However the box could find a home with some re-tooling. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But should that home be every single NYCS article? I'd rather just incorporae a little more in the NYCS navbox. alphaChimp laudare 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said, since the MTA is control central this navbox should go with the MTA page, as the navbox can help people to get from the MTA page to other pages that are MTA-related. I do like this navbox, but it shouldn't replace the current NYCS navbox. --imdanumber1 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Navbox isn't necessary on the New York City Subway articles as those articles are only about New York City Transit. The box should only be on the MTA article. The Legendary Ranger 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I don't mind. alphaChimp laudare 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes have been made to the MTA (New York) navbox. The subway links have been simplified. Now, there are only links to New York City Subway and Staten Island Railway, under the category Heavy Rail. The same will probably be done with the LIRR and Metro-North sections. I am also planning on making this toolbox link ONLY to the page for each division (LIRR, Metro-North, LI Bus, MTA Bus, NYC Transit buses and subways, etc.) --AEMoreira042281] 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in its now-reduced form, I would not endorse using it on any page that has . It is not justified to have both on the same page, as they have many of the same links in common. Marc Shepherd 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New navbox

message: The MTA web site says there are 468 subway stations.  I asked them for a list, and they replied to look at a subway map!  So, I used the map to come up with my own list of 468 stations making some (hopefully reasonable) assumptions about whether or not to count separate lines in the same "complex" as part of the same "station".
I then compared my list to the "List of New York City Subway Stations" here on Wikipedia, and it turns out they are almost identical once you account for differences between the names on the list vs. the names on the map.
As a result, I'd like to propose that the following changes be made to the list here:
1. Move the following permanently closed/abandoned stations to a separate section that does not count toward the total:
   18th Street (closed) on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line
   91st Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) (closed)
   City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)
   Dean Street (BMT Franklin Avenue Line) (closed)
   Worth Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)
2. Eliminate the duplicate entry for "East Broadway (IND Sixth Avenue Line)" which appears under both "B" and "E".  I think it belongs under "E" since unlike (for example) "W 4 St" which is just a section of 4th Street, "East Broadway" has nothing to do with Broadway.
3. Split the following "complexes" into separate stations:
   14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line becomes
      14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line
      14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Broadway Line
      14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Canarsie Line
   42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, IRT Flushing Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line) becomes
      42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle)
      42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Flushing Line)
      42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)
   42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, BMT Broadway Line, IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line) becomes
      42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle)
      42nd Street-Times Square (BMT Broadway Line)
      42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)
      42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Flushing Line)
Note that I am NOT proposing that these "split" links point to separate articles, nor am I advocating any changes to station names (just to avoid what seem to be 2 of the most contentious issues).
With these changes, the list of stations here would be exactly 468, although it would certainly be nice if the MTA would publish their list so it could be verified.
Finally, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who has worked on creating the "New York City Subway" part of Wikipedia - your work is appreciated :)
:Thanks for the thoughtful comments:
:#I would remove the closed stations from the list.
:#I have removed East Broadway from the "B" section, as suggested.
:#The MTA's figure of 468 stations is a somewhat loose concept. I think the average reader will have an easier time of it if one bullet on the List of New York City Subway stations corresponds to one Wikipedia article. I admire your tenacity in counting up the bullets to reconcile to the 468 figure, but the typical reader won't really think about it that way. Marc Shepherd 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of New York City Subway Stations 

message: I guess that the vandals couldn't get enough, and they starting to get on my nerves. Marc Shepherd says that "the  and  articles were vandalised this afternoon."  Please revert them on sight if you suspect vandalism. Keep an eye out for ALL subway articles, especially those vandalized by Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time to protect those vandalized pages again, which includes and  and  train, the R40s, R68s, R68As, and New York City Subway rolling stocks. The Legendary Ranger 15:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of these articles had a  but were not protected. Only admins can protect articles. Gimmetrow 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I sprotected the above article, and placed the notice on the pages that didn't have it. If there are more (please make sure they have been vandalized first) PLEASE place an  notice on it and leave me a list of the pages on my talk page, and I will protect them as soon as I can get to it. -- Cecropia 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  If need be, you can always drop me a note too. I haven't been as active in NYCS recently, but I'm ready to semi protect should the need arise again. alphaChimp(talk) 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What!? Non-admins cannot semi-protect articles. The protect tab is the only way to actually protect an article. alphaChimp(talk) 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries. You're refering to the addition of the protection template, which anyone can do. The actual technical ability is a tab that appears at the top of all admins' pages. alphaChimp(talk) 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More subway changes

message: Last time, I conducted an experiment to see if anyone liked the new table I made. Apparently no one did because of the verbosity it contained. I have made a few new  adjustments. Please view the table and see if you like it. I have made brand new changes so the table might work this time. Please view this page to see if you like the new table.
* First, I used templates instead of words to describe when the trains run.
* I no longer show bus connections, unless they are buses heading to airports (similar to how the R142s do it, they don't show every bus route except for airport-bound buses, so we should do this too)
* I put breaks between line templates, so they won't be piled together and make the table too wide to read
That is mostly it. With the changes I made, I hope we can agree on the new table, containing new changes made, as well as implementing old ideas from the current one.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few questions:
#What problem are you trying to solve? This version is certainly much better than the last version you offered. But how is it better than what we have in the articles now?
#There are two formats for the station table. Those describing lines are different from those describing services. Which one are you proposing to replace? (Note that the IRT 42nd Street Shuttle is the only case in Wikipedia where the line and the service are in the same article.)
#I definitely don't like having the station name in the second column. The station name is the most important column, and should be at the left. In our current layouts, the Access icon is usually the left column, but that column is so narrow that it doesn't matter. Putting "All Times Except Late Nights*" in the left column is the wrong way to go. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Listing table 

message: Marc Shepherd has decided to leave Wikipedia. More information on why he left can be seen on his user page. I myself am verry sorry to see him go, but no one can control his decisions but him. This is irrelevant from the WikiProject, but he made timeless contributions here trying to keep the WikiProject strong. He made his last edit on his userpage, and officially signed off. I hope, however, that he  will still read our discussions to see how we are doing, and might, just might, come back and edit again. I myself would like to thank him, except he won't respond. But I wish him good luck outside of Wikipedia, and hope whatever he is doing is worthwhile, From Imdanumber1 at WikiProject New York City Subway,...
GOODBYE MARC SHEPHERD
--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that everyone (myslef included) is REALLY busy in real life, and can't really "give" all their time at the moment. The project might be quiet for a few months. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It won't fall apart. The articles are still here, and our watchlists are still here. We have 2-3 sysops. We should be fine. alphaChimp(talk) 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will just mean we will have to work harder than ever. It seems me and Pacific Coast Highway are the only non-admins here. Don't worry, we can still move on and continue, even if one of our best-valued editor is gone. WE WILL PREVAIL!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye Marc Shepherd 

message: Can someone help me make a list of the hybrid icons we might need, such as the "all but nights and rush hours in peak dir" icon? – flamurai (t) 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Flamurai,
I definitely think we are getting somewhere now. I do have a sandbox subpage, and I have changed the new table there and added your new bullets. However, I would not endorse slicing half of the all except rush and all but night bullets and merge the two halves together. Pacific Coast Highway made a good suggestion to use more than one symbol. Besides, not all of the train lines have the same service pattern, which would make the merged one you proposed redundant, and less commonly used. The "symbol-under-symbol" configuration, that Pacific Coast Highway suggested, is what I would do. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The templates will also help make sure the "alt" text is correct for all the images. However, do we want to do this with one template and a parserfunctions "switch" statement (like ), or separate templates? – flamurai (t) 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I implemented the "switch" method at User:Flamurai/NYCS/NYCS station service icon. e.g.  I don't really like the term "denotation" since it really doesn't say what the icons describe. The MTA term is "station service", which distinguishes it from just service. If "station service icon" is too wordy, we could make a redirect from "NYCS SS" or something. Once we finalize all this, I'd like to reupload the icons with shorter names (e.g. NYCS-SSI-alltimes.svg) and have the old ones deleted. – flamurai (t) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, shortening the names would be fine, just add summaries once this is done so people can know what they mean. Just one thing: 
When we create the templates for the icons (icons is a better name, instead of denotation), starting with "NYCS", should we use numbers ( or () to substitute "all times except late nights"? I'm neutral on it, but I want to see what you would decide on. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Take care of renaming the images to shorter names, have the old ones deleted, then I will delete the GIF images I originally uploaded, then we can work on the template naming convention for the icons. THEN the new table just might have a new home on the pages after consensus. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid icons 

message: Hey, I've created Template:User WP:NYCS. You can feel free to add it to your userpage. If you'd like, you can make any modifications to it if you want. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User WP:NYCS]] 

message: I'd like to apologize to the members of this WikiProject (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) for my recent inactivity on Wikipedia. I recently started my freshman year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an exceptionally large volume of schoolwork has severely restricted my available leisure time. I will try to return as I become accustomed to the academic program here. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I just started in September. =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent absence 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I support the usage of hex codes in the navigational box. I don't see why not. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hex codes in the navbox 

message: These are the colors I used for the bullets. They're based on the printed map (not the PDF map... those colors are not correct because of color space translation from CMYK to RGB). Colors are really inconsistent from sign to sign, from station to station, etc. – flamurai (t) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Any good reason not to add appropriate line colors to the NYCS line templates? Let me know. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Color in the article text is tacky, unprofessional, and draws too much attention to what's being colored. I'm against it. This is an encyclopedia, not a timetable. – flamurai (t) 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand. I think it's tacky. Stick with the defined link colors in the article body. – flamurai (t) 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color in the NYCS line templates 

message: I guess it's finally time that we have a consensus on the new subway table. It's been two months, and I think we are ready to decide its future. A lot of work has been put into it, making SVG icons (thanks to Flamurai), a new legend (thanks to Flamurai), to name a few. Therefore, I would like to thank Flamurai for reviving the table, because if it wasn't for him, I'd be stuck. I would also like to thank PCH, for minor (albeit helpful) ideas as well, since you two actually tried to help while others opposed it without trying to implement ideas. I really hope everyone votes support, however, since time and hard work definitely went into this. Voting ends Friday. Thanks!
Support
# Support. I would like to be one of the first to vote support on the table. As a lot of time and work went into it, it's ready. For the most part, though, I thank Flamurai for his ideas and for reviving the discussion. Because there were some people opposed to it, I wasn't sure what to do. But Flamurai jumped in at the right time, getting rid of the copyright issue by creating SVG icons, and improving the table and legend syntax. Therefore, the table is ready, and with that said, thanks Flamurai. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said this once before. And I'll say it again, revert to the original ADA icon. The current blue on white one is horrid and the other one worked better in a small situation. This icon does not. Pacific Coast Highway {Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!} 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only used the blue one because the MTA table used it too, but you're right; the regular one works better. If we can create a blue SVG icon so it can render better, then that would be cool; otherwise, we'll use the regular one. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, pushy's kind of the style on WP. It's just that these mass edits take time, which is the whole point of getting consensus in the first place. – flamurai (t) 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't notice you didn't change all the articles yet. I think now we can use the bullet graphics in the header row. I noticed in  there is a huge space between the stacked bullets... we have to solve that. – flamurai (t) 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Handicap reverse blue background.svg  (Damn that renders better than I expected... I think the strokes are exactly 1px, or very close.) – flamurai (t) 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway Service Information table consensus