Talk:Second Avenue Subway

message: The article continues to grow - I don't have the word count tool, but it's up about 20% since January, or about 20k words. I suggest breaking out the construction into a separate article - that will be the most stable unless/until they start a new stage. After that, as noted above, a separate history article makes sense. I do not have time to start now, but if no one else does, can jump in later this season. Jd2718 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Split (2) 

message: Why are we not showing all current services for the Second Ave Subway? Cards84664 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, why are you changing a long-standing satus quo without consensus to do so, and edit warring to keep it in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed it back without pressing the revert button, and used an abbreviation that has no common meaning, so why wouldn't I? Also, please link me to the long-standing discussion, I have not seen such. Cards84664 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the user who uploaded :File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-QT.svg (although it is not in use on this article, the upload of this image led to the placement of the Q/T infobox images that are there today). It was a result of this discussion on December 18, 2016, when  created :File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-future.svg to signify the N, Q, and future T bullets. He had said,  I think it was changed to show only Q/T at a later date. Personally, I think it should be N, Q, R, and T, like the IRT New Lots Line article with the 2, 3, 4, and 5, even though only the 3 stops there during the daytime."LGV" means "last good version", by the way. It is listed in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that started that discussion and which was followed up by discussion at the wikiproject talk page (though I don't have a specific archive link handy). I'll say now what I said then: a handful of oddball variant runs that aren't even deemed significant enough to show on station signage shouldn't be in the infobox, as they're relatively minor, could confuse readers, and, because of how our infoboxes are formatted, essentially create ficticious signage. Including the R at the very top of the article because of one short-turn run (which doesn't even appear in the current official timetable, btw) is questionable. The half dozen N trains aren't anymore significant. Noting them in the services section is enough (though the bullets there are also questionable; why do we have redundant and frankly purely decorative images there in the first place?) oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't really decorative. In all of the other subway line articles except for this one, all the services that use the line are listed in the infobox, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time, or a few rush-hour runs only. I would point out the IRT New Lots Line article as an example. On the other hand, this article displays a service that doesn't exist yet (the T) and doesn't display the services that do use the line (the N and R). But I think we can reword the infobox so the image caption also mentions that very few N and R trains stop here. epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're decorative in the sense that we already have illustrative bullets at the top of the articles. As for the second part, instead of adding the bullets for a handful of rush hour runs here, we really ought to be taking them out of the other articles for the same reasons as I listed above. Including them rises to the same level of trivial detail as counting rivets on a R38 subway car. Mention them in body text, don't treat them as eqvluivalent to the regular primary services on the line that appear on the map or station signage, as it creates fictitious signage here. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Counting rivets" is funny. I like it. On the other hand, maybe we can remove the service bullets from the line articles' infoboxes if they don't primarily serve the line, since we already do this in the stations' articles. epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What about dropping the prose and just explaining the services outright? Cards84664 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think of these? Cards84664 (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these would look better as full sentences, or at least sentence fragments (row 2 of this table). Or else we can drop unnecessary details (row 3). epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Row 3 hands down. Cards84664 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. One last thing, though: we still need to explain why the colors are there in the infobox. Especially for the Second Avenue Subway, which is technically "" but obviously the Q is yellow. So which version shall it be? epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Services

message: I just saw your article from The New York Times, It was featured on the front page of Wikipedia's news on Google. I have added the media template to this talk page, due to its mention in the NYT article. Congrats! Cards84664 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I didn't know it would be out this early. I thought they would wait for the Sunday magazine issue. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will be in the Metro section.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks as well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The New York Times

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per WP:SNOW and the arguments made below.  Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Second Avenue Subway →  – for consistency with the other NYC subway lines. While it is referred to by news media as "Second Avenue Subway", this is pretty awkward wording as "subway" is usually used to refer to an entire subway system, not a single line. I am also willing to use Second Avenue Line for this same purpose. That, or the other articles referring the subway lines with their company names ($1 $2 Line) could simply have the company name dropped in their title (so $2 Line). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While the internal name for the line is the IND Second Avenue Line, the common name used by nearly all media is "Second Avenue Subway". "Second Avenue Line" as a title is even more ambiguous; there is both a former elevated line and a surface transportation (bus) line with this name. There are several other instances in which different companies did use the same line name, e.g. IRT Sixth Avenue Line, IND Sixth Avenue Line. Barring that, I don't see the reason to drop the company name from other lines.I do sympathize with the nominator's intent, having made an ill-advised request to move Atlantic Terminal some years ago. But there isn't really an overarching need for title consistency here. If the concern is that inconsistent titles may lead to red links, then there is not an issue as IND Second Avenue Line already redirects here. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Epicgenius You mean World Trade Center station (PATH). But yeah I see. I am guessing if MTA and media be inconsistent with naming so be it. We aren't prescriptive, we are descriptive, and if "second avenue line" or "IND second avenue line" becomes more commonly searched in the future, then a move can be made there. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 April 2022 

message: Regarding your recent revert, page 17 of the MESA says: "The Grand Central Terminal spur service could not achieve competitive frequency due to capacity constraints on the Second Avenue route." In other words, there was not enough track capacity. (The MESA also mentions "competitive travel time", which I forgot to add.)
In regards to your edit summary, though, I'm not seeing where it takes up two lines of space. On my 1280x1024 display, the info shows up on the same line as the sentence before it. Perhaps we can reword this to "due to a lack of track capacity or time savings"? Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a claim, not a fact, it needs to be identified as such, which would stretch the text (currently just over a full line) to a bit longer. More than one line, less than two lines. It is a fact that they made the claim - not a fact that the claim is true. On the other hand, that the spur was considered, but dropped, is absolutely a well sourced fact. Jd2718 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Central spur