Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 2

message: I've been noticing that a lot of articles are missing photos. Do you guys think that it would be worth it to get photos of them? (I'm thinking something like whenever I go through a station, just sticking my head out and taking some picture.) Or, do you think it's not worth it. To be quite frank, most of the stations are pretty much the same. --Alphachimp talk 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, a lot of stations look quite alike. If you think that a station stands out for some reason, then go ahead and snap away… and if you're in doubt, well, take a couple anyway; it's always best to err on the side of caution. Maybe I'll make up a list of stations that I think merit photos. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't overwork yourself. I'm just going to go around and take photos. Even if they aren't amazing, they're still better than nothing.  Alphachimp talk 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is true… just watch out for the cops =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a copy of da rules with you, to avoid any trouble. I would add some, but they're really crappy cell phone pictures. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically yes, but the police will still give you a hard time about it. You just have to be confident that you are in the right, and follow PCH's idea of bringing a copy of the rules with you. And it would help if you made sure no police were around =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: My lazyness has kept me from bringing my camera anywhere. Hopefully I can get around to it tomorrow. Alphachimp talk 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Photos 

message: I've proposed a change to  that would incorporate links to the various subprojects of WikiProject Trains.  Your input on the template talk page would be appreciated.  Thanks.  Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to {{tl|TrainsWikiProject}} for subprojects 

message: Is there a policy on the categorization of former stations?
===Background===
Here's what we have today:
* The category Abandoned New York City Subway stations has five entrants:
** The four abandoned stations along the original Manhattan IRT Route (City Hall, Worth Street, 18th Street, 91st Street), each of which is also in either the IRT Lexington Avenue Line or IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line station category.
** New York Transit Museum, which is not part of the category for IND Fulton Street Line stations.
* The category Demolished New York City Subway stations has two entrants:
** Dean Street, which is also included in the category for BMT Franklin Avenue Shuttle stations
** Park Row
* The category Defunct IRT stations has two entrants:
**155th Street
**South Ferry (IRT elevated station)
* The category Defunct BMT stations has three entrants:
** Dean Street
** Park Row
** Culver Depot, which is also included in the categories for BMT Culver Line Stations and BMT Brighton Line Stations
And one last point: the List of New York City Subway stations currently includes City Hall, Worth Street, 18th Street, and 91st Street, but it includes no other closed stations.
===Proposal===
There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency here, but I would suggest the following:
* The category Abandoned New York City Subway stations should include stations that still physically exist, but which no longer provide revenue service. (Stations temporarily closed would not be considered "abandoned," even if the closure lasts a long time, e.g., Cortlandt Street on the Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line).
* The category Demolished New York City Subway stations should include stations that no longer physically exist (to the extent they justify separate articles)
* The categories Defunct IRT stations and Defunct BMT stations seem to me redundant, and could be eliminated. But if they are to remain, perhaps they should include every article on an IRT or BMT station that no longer provides service, whether that station was abandoned or demolished. Otherwise, I am not sure what is the distinction between "defunct" and "demolished."
* The List of New York City Subway stations should include abandoned stations that are still on the revenue route, but it should not include other defunct/demolished stations.
One final point: some of the articles on subway lines include "red links" to demolished stations that don't currently have their own articles. For instance, the article on the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line has red links to twelve demolished stations, the BMT Canarsie Line to three others; the page for the BMT Jamaica Line does not do this. It's difficult for me to imagine that there would ever be enough to say about these stations to justify separate articles for them, so perhaps these station names should be de-linked. Marc Shepherd 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with the counter-proposal. I had assumed that the four categories were dear to someone's heart, and so was trying to rationalize them somehow. But personally, I don't see the need for four separate categories either. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's done. Vote for deletion of the other categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 5#Categories for defunct NYC subway stations. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Good thinking. Alphachimp talk 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also check out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories for defunct New York City Subway services. I've eliminated a similar system regarding defunct services; these are now at :Category:Defunct New York City Subway services. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct/Abandoned/Demolished, etc. 

message: There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency here, but I would suggest the following:
* The category Abandoned New York City Subway stations should include stations that still physically exist, but which no longer provide revenue service. (Stations temporarily closed would not be considered "abandoned," even if the closure lasts a long time, e.g., Cortlandt Street on the Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line).
* The category Demolished New York City Subway stations should include stations that no longer physically exist (to the extent they justify separate articles)
* The categories Defunct IRT stations and Defunct BMT stations seem to me redundant, and could be eliminated. But if they are to remain, perhaps they should include every article on an IRT or BMT station that no longer provides service, whether that station was abandoned or demolished. Otherwise, I am not sure what is the distinction between "defunct" and "demolished."
* The List of New York City Subway stations should include abandoned stations that are still on the revenue route, but it should not include other defunct/demolished stations.
One final point: some of the articles on subway lines include "red links" to demolished stations that don't currently have their own articles. For instance, the article on the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line has red links to twelve demolished stations, the BMT Canarsie Line to three others; the page for the BMT Jamaica Line does not do this. It's difficult for me to imagine that there would ever be enough to say about these stations to justify separate articles for them, so perhaps these station names should be de-linked. Marc Shepherd 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I agree that there needs to more consistency concerning categorization of these types of stations, but I don't really see the need for four separate categories, each of which probably never have more than five articles. I suggest that all articles about abandoned/demolished/defunct stations be placed in one category, :Category:Defunct New York City Subway stations, which would include all stations which no longer see revenue service, regardless of current physical state.
I do agree about the red links; they should be removed.
--Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with the counter-proposal. I had assumed that the four categories were dear to someone's heart, and so was trying to rationalize them somehow. But personally, I don't see the need for four separate categories either. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's done. Vote for deletion of the other categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 5#Categories for defunct NYC subway stations. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Good thinking. Alphachimp talk 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also check out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories for defunct New York City Subway services. I've eliminated a similar system regarding defunct services; these are now at :Category:Defunct New York City Subway services. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-proposal

message: I've proposed :Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue stations for deletion, as it is an empty category. All of the stations on that line are in :Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations.
Vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 6#Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue stations. Marc Shepherd 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional category for deletion 

message: on this wikiproject
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMW814 (talk • contribs) 
:Awesome! Feel free to add your name to the project at WP:NYCS. I assume that you're not currently in NYC, but there are a lot of things that you can do to help even if you're not. Larry V or Pacific Coast Highway could probably think of a lot of really good suggestions. Again, thanks for offering to help. Alphachimp talk 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to help and contribute 

message: A policy re: station and station stop articles is being proposed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and it has been suggested that it be considered here as well. Please come and comment at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Mangoe 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: guys, I would encourage you all to check out this page. The proposal basically suggests that all train station articles that do not describe a specifically unique station are deleted or merged into the subway line article. Alphachimp talk 06:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of an overstatement. The intent is to try to stem the tide of station stop articles that do nought but duplicate timetable information. I'm inclined to update the proposal to explicitly exclude subway stations. In any case I feel this project has taken a particularly good approach to station articles, at least as far as subways are concerned. Mangoe 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK. I noticed that you changed it earlier today. I was somewhat alarmed about the implications of setting a policy against train stations. Alphachimp talk 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As was I, having put in several hundred hours of time into so many of these articles. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other news, I began taking pictures today, which would make deleting all NYCT articles (or at least the "NN" ones) quite alarming. Alphachimp talk 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but Wikipedia 'is' pages; that organizational constraint hasn't been done away with. The "lumper/splitter" paradigm isn't eliminated by hypertext. Mangoe 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but could you please say that in English? I don't think I understood a word you said. Alphachimp talk 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he meant is that "pages" stil exist, even on a website. What I meant is the constraints of a piece of paper. Soon, we'll be in violation of a policy for following another one. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: lol. I see your point. Alphachimp talk 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: "Wikipedia is not a timetable" 

message: I've been having a conversation with Larry V that I'm repeating and expanding here. In the infoboxes on station pages, and in the tables on the line and service pages, which stations should be attributed to which services?
The pages for DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line), Canal Street (Manhattan Bridge), and Atlantic–Pacific Streets do not show  service via the bridge line stopping at DeKalb Avenue, but the published timetable does show about 7-8  trains every weekday, in each direction, using the bridge line and making that stop. Twice I've put the  onto DeKalb Avenue, and twice Larry V has edited it out again. Perhaps the philosophy is that the stop is made too infrequently?
But if so, then why do the pages for the IRT Eastern Parkway Line stations beyond Franklin Avenue show  and  service? The published timetables for the 2 and the 5 show no such service. (It is mentioned in a small-print footnote on the subway map).
A similar issue arises for  service to 179th Street — not mentioned in the published timetable, but mentined in small print on the subway map, and shown in Wikipedia articles for those the E service, the IND Queens Boulevard Line, and the two affected stations (Jamaica-179th Street and Parsons Boulevard.
If there's a consistent approach there, I can't see it. Either all articles should show every published stop (even those made rarely), or all articles should show the typical stops, ignoring these "oddball" exceptions. I can see merits to both, but the articles are not consistent as of now. Marc Shepherd 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  runs via DeKalb Avenue during late nights. The timetable you specified mentioned only 3 daytime trains stopping, all southbound, and in the PM rush hour. If that's the case, a template time thingy should mention pm rush hour (southbound only) and late nights only. And EVERY stop, oddball or not should be listed. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count, the southbound  takes the bridge and stops at DeKalb at these times: 6:07a, 6:25a, 6:36a, 6:48a, 6:57a, 5:53p, 5:45p, 6:04p. The northbound  takes the bridge and stops at DeKalb at these times: 5:55a, 10:00p, 10:12p, 10:24p, 10:36p, 10:48p, 11:00p. Marc Shepherd 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After consideration, I would not object to changing the service templates to include the N service. After all, I do advocate leaving the info about the 2, 5, and E, and it would be hypocritical to exclude the N. What must then be considered is whether those N trains stopping at DeKalb also ran local along Fourth Avenue; if we change the DeKalb info, we have to change the various Fourth Ave templates as well. It is possible that the N runs switch from express to local before DeKalb, but it is not a certain thing; they very well might have run local all the way from the Sea Beach junction. The schedule suggests express runs from Pacific to 59th for the three evening southbound runs, but for the early morning rush and late evening runs, it suggests local runs. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then those northbound trains (somehow) are the late night runs. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which stations to list 

message: The Straphanger article is prominently linked from the  navigation box.
The article, though, defines "straphanger" in a general way, and provides several non-mass transit meanings. Should this be considered a "New York City Subway stub," and linked from the NYCS nav box?
A short while ago, I put a "cleanup" tag on the article, whereupon someone promptly cleaned it up, but its connection to the subway remains tenuous. Marc Shepherd 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've now put a  tag on it. Maybe an encyclopedia article is possible, but this isn't one. Marc Shepherd 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I agree and do not feel that this is or ever can be specific enough to the New York City Subway system to merit being in . By definition, the term applies to a far wider field that simply New York. I'll remove it. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. It really doesnt belong. Let's remove it from the navbox.Alphachimp talk 19:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straphanger 

message: The infobox for 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) shows 138th Street-Grand Concourse as the next station south (local), with both  and  service offered.
The infobox for 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) shows 138th Street-Grand Concourse as one of two stations south, but with only  service offered.
If I understand the logic of the infobox design, the "south service" and "north_service" are supposed to be coded from the point of view of the station you are writing about. Since 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) is served only by  and  trains, it should show only where  and  trains go after they leave the station.
If that is correct, then 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT White Plains Road Line) is coded correctly, and 149th Street-Grand Concourse (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) is not. However, a drawback of this approach is that it requires more "hard-coding" in the infoboxes at line merge/diverge points. It is therefore more error-prone (as this very example illustrates).
I would add that perhaps the two 149th–Grand Concourse station articles should be merged into "149th St-Grand Concourse (New York City Subway)," as has been done for a number of other station complexes with identical names. Marc Shepherd 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jerome Avenue infobox is indeed incorrect. The thing about merging the articles is that the problem would not be resolved. See such merged articles as Times Square-42nd Street and 42nd Street-Grand Central (New York City Subway). These still have multiple infoboxes, one for each "station" in the complex. The problem at 149 was not technical error but editor error. I believe this infobox was coded during a period of time where the philosophy of the infobox was different; at that time, all services at the next station were shown, not just the services from the POV of the current station. Thus, the next express south from 149-GC Jerome, 125th St, shows  service as well. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox question 

message: Someone posted a nice little box with some quick facts about the . I kinda like it. Can we implement it to other lines? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get sourced info, I don't see why not. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just talking about posting that on the article for the entire line, right? Alphachimp talk 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Closed Captioned) 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that's what PCH is talking about, can't be sure. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick facts boxes? 

message: I was starting to cut and past the bus connections thing from the archive, but I decided it might be better just to start fresh here. Anyway, what do you guys think? Should we make a template for bus connections? Alphachimp talk 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean templates like Template:NYCT M100 bus? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Sadly, I do. Alphachimp talk 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it's a good idea, but the inherent problem with those is that they are static. They cannot be updated station to station. The M4 runs on Fifth Avenue at some point, yes, but not northbound from 190th Street (to give an example). --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Connections CONTINUED 

message: A couple of weeks ago I mentioned my interest in adding bus connections to the subway stations. I finally bit the bullet and produced a sample, just for the entire IND 8th avenue line in Manhattan (A and C from 207-Broadway/Nassau). I'm using a slightly simpler template, based off of Larry V's NYCS bus template. My template is entitled Template:NYCS simplebus. It's ridiculously simple to use, and merely bolds the bus name and assigns it to the depot page (which has route info). I've programmed in AWB (if you even want to call it that) every single bus route to match every single depot in NY (including MTA bus depots). When you type a bolded bus name in an article (e.g. M5), and point AWB to it, it will replace the M5 text with a bolded version linking you to a description of the route on the depot page (see here). This should also make it easier to accomodate bus route changes.
I'm hoping that other people will become interested in adding the bus connections section to their local train line, but, if need be, I could probably do the whole thing myself. Like I said, bold the bus name. If it's a real NYCT or MTA bus, AWB should do the rest. What do you guys think? Alphachimp talk 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice template; just one thing. While you go through the bus depot changes, make sure that the heading for the routes page (e.g., "Bus routes served by the…") is exactly in that format. That is, "Bus routes served by the <title of page>", with exactly the same capitalization. I've found a few that maybe capitalize "routes" and thus don't work with the template. Feel free to edit them to make them fit. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that. Thanks for the heads up. Alphachimp talk 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know much about MTA bus, just NYCT bus, but check this out (Far Rockaway Bus Depot = John F. Kennedy Bus Depot). I found it last night when I was listing the bus lines in AWB. It looks like Far Rockaway changed its name to JFK, but I can't find any internet records to that effect. Any ideas? Alphachimp talk 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're different depots. Far Rock is in the Rockaways, while JFK is in South Jamaica. Basically, the former Green Bus Lines operated all of their routes from JFK and used Far Rock as a satellite depot, which is why the route tables are exactly the same. It wasn't as if some routes operated from JFK and some from Far Rock; all routes were serviced at both depots. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Connections...continued (again) 

message: I've finished splitting A-C (New York City Subway service) into A (New York City Subway service) and C (New York City Subway service), although each probably needs work. Also, "What links here" for A-C (New York City Subway service) is still showing hundreds of articles—maybe from Template:NYCS navbox, although I edited it. I have no idea why it's showing up like that, but they link properly, so I suppose it's okay. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, there might be something wrong with that "What links here", either on the servers or with my local machine. Anyone else see anything under that link? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, forget it altogether, it looks like the changes to the navbox were taking a while to replicate across the servers. Looks good now. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated all links to the original A-C page to point to the correct place. Marc Shepherd 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Marc and Larry. You were popping up all over my watchlist today. alphaChimp laudare 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A/C split 

message: I'm in the midst of a long project to ensure that each station's accessibility status is properly reflected in the articles. This is a very lengthy and tedious process. I thought it would be worthwhile to record all the places that need to be checked whenever a station becomes newly-accessible:
#The article New York City Subway accessibility needs to be updated
#In the article for the station, "accessible = yes" needs to be set in the infobox
#If this station has free transfers to any other station, then the other station's infobox must have "transfer_station_acc = yes" (or "transfer_station_2_acc = yes").
#In the articles for the station(s) immediately south of this station, the infoboxes need to be updated with "north_station_acc = yes," "north_local_station_acc = yes," or "north_express_station_acc = yes," as appropriate. Likewise for the station(s) immediately north. If the next station is "hard-coded" (i.e., "north_custom_station," or the like), then indicate accessibility with: .
#In the article for the line on which the station resides, the station needs to be shown as accessible in the tabular station listing. (Some of the articles for NYCS lines don't yet indicate accessible stations, but eventually they all will.)
#In the article for each service that visits the station, the station needs to be shown as accessible in the tabular station listing. (Some of the articles for NYCS services don't yet indicate accessible stations, but eventually they all will.)
(Note: For every infobox parameter that accepts "yes" for accessibility, there is also the option of entering "northbound" or "southbound" if the station is accessible in only one direction.)
As you can see, there are a lot of coordinated updates that need to take place whenever a station is renovated for accessibility. Perhaps it's no surprise that, for the majority of accessible stations, these were not coded correctly. I think I've made it through all of them now, hopefully without making any mistakes. I've posted this so that others will be aware of all the places that need to be checked, as it's quite easy to miss something. Marc Shepherd 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a version of the above to WP:NYCS, so that it will be available for reference after this discussion topic is eventually archived. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accessibility, a primer

message: A survey is being held regarding to the changes of the subway line informtion table that me, imdanumber1, made on the following three articles: the (S - Rockaway Park Shuttle, S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle, and S - 42nd Street Shuttle). If you like the new table, please vote by saying Support. If you like the original table, say Oppose. If you don't care either way, say, Neutral. Don't forget to type a description as to why you have voted, followed by your signature and a timestamp. All Wikipedians who are working on this WikiProject must vote in order for a decision to be made. A conclusion will be reached deciding on majority. Voting ends on Saturday at 12 p.m. Thank you for your cooperation. --imdanumber1 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Support. It is my recreation; have to go with it. --imdanumber1 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I stated my reasons above, but in brief: (1) the new column order is not as user-friendly as the original one; (2) the service listing is too verbose; and (3) I do not think bus connections should be included. Marc Shepherd 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose as per Marc. I feel that the current style is better, more streamlined and concise, and easier to use. There is no need to show bus information (the oft-quoted "Wikipedia is not a timetable"). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nothing personal. Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Marc and Larry. I really just don't see the pressing need to reformat it. The current form is just fine. alphaChimp laudare 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I find it very confusing when viewing infoboxes on subway station articles. They all show North and South! Shouldn't they show East and West as well? --imdanumber1 16:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Most of our lines run in an uptown or downtown direction (correlated with Manhattan). Giving 4 directions would be entirely confusing and would not work for most stations. alphaChimp laudare 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AlphaChimp. Marc Shepherd 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The official NYCT system is to use Uptown and Downtown to indicate the directions of trains. I don't think it's appropriate to completely reformat the infobox to represent said directions. Remember, you're always welcome to add any information relative to the switches in line direction to the individual station article. alphaChimp laudare 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General policy for railroads in general is to define one direction on a line as "railroad north" and the opposite direction as "railroad south," or one as "railroad west" and the other as "railroad east." This is to provide an easy way to describe direction of travel without dealing with conflicts or other snags which would arise if geographic directions were used. The New York City Subway uses north/south (or within Manhattan, uptown/downtown) because most Manhattan mainlines run roughly north and south. Plus, take Bowery as an example. I should think it would be more confusing to show "Next south" and "Next east." Using north/south clearly signifies that the stations shown are in opposite directions on the line. –Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Almost any substitution for north/south would be a cure worse than the disease. Even the (mostly) British use of "up" and "down" lines ("up" toward the CBD and "down" away) wouldn't work because this system is designed for CBD terminals, not through-routes. Plus the "north/south" has verifiability, since the track numbering scheme indicates railroad directions on the NYC system. -- Cecropia 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North/South Infobox Issue

message: Some idiot has just proposed  for deletion, claiming its existence is a hoax. I assume he's a close relation to guy who keeps telling us about the September 9, 2006, service changes. Anyhow, please click through and vote Keep on the deletion proposal. Marc Shepherd 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  has been saved, in one of the speediest keeps I've seen (under four hours). Marc Shepherd 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been speedier, IMHO. What a ridiculous proposal. alphaChimp laudare 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save the Q