Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6

message: Is there any objection to applying MiszaBot here to automatically archive? --NE2 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection. 10 or 14 days should be set for the archival. Only one question: should the next archive number be 5 or 1? Tinlinkin 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That next archive that I did now is #5. BWCNY 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did the archive, that is really 1 big file to move. BWCNY 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Before the merger, we agreed to use the schedules (or the stop listing). My idea is that we return to that. Whatever was listed in the schedules, would be used here. The reason I would like us to do so is because they tend to be more consistent. (the decision to use the map was a unilateral one, no one discussed this) In fact, this is just the tip of the iceberg of recent actions made without consensus within the project. I don't want to be a crybaby, but if this is going to work, we need to listen to each other, and respect everyone's concerns, not start edit wars and bully with policies. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see use common names. Signs are generally more consistent than the schedules: is it 57th Street or Midtown–57th Street? Is it Pacific Street or Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street? --NE2 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signage might also be outdated. Slattery Plaza ceases to exist. Puritan Avenue, Gaston Avenue and Playland are gone too. And you forgot about Midtown-57th Street/Seventh Avenue, it's still in the R68 rollsign. The signage is consistent, but at the same time, may not be current. At least the line maps and scheduling are updated somewhat regularly. And if we were to use "common names", it would be something on a map, since it is more widely distrubuted than some bolted overhead sings in a station. At best, I would go with a compromise system. Most inclusive name wins. And stop the policy bullying. It's getting everyone nowhere, policy is meant to keep things going smoothly, not a weapon. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slattery Plaza is not on new-style signs, only the tiles. Similarly, "Midtown" is not on the signs. The common name would be what daily commuters see in real life, not what tourists see on the map. --NE2 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about switching you link. Didn't mean to do that. Woodhaven Boulevard (aside from the stairs) does not have any new style signs. It's all tiled. And the tourist thnig is a poor excuse. You might as well apply that to scheduling, line maps and the station signs too. Tourists look at those as well. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the signs on the stairways? That's what someone will see when they enter the subway, not what's on the map. Signs in the station - including on the pillars - are what someone will see when riding the subway. --NE2 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about what someone sees. This is about what is published and what is official. Not about "I lived here for so and so and we called it blah blah blah". Maps and schedules are published and are updated in a somewhat timely fashion. Station signs are rarely updated in that fashion. Technically, we should be using theinformation on the maps/schedules, since it is attributed to a source, the MTA map/schedules. The signage relies on personal observations, or original research. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signage is something the MTA creates and posts. By your argument, any discussions of naming conventions are original research, and that's not true. --NE2 03:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For a simple counterexample, note that the article is at United States, not United States of America. Was this original research, deciding that the former is more common? --NE2 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know the MTA has an obligation to "update" station signs? The Van Wyck Boulevard station mosaic was largely undisturbed and "Briarwood" was just added to where the exit direction sign (whatever that's called) was previously. I remember Larry V previously mentioned there are no "official" station names. Therefore, next logical naming convention is to use the common name. Right now I can't tell if that can be derived from signage, The Map, online or published schedules, or even third party published articles. The MTA also does not use ordinal numbers for either The Map or signage. I will not take a position until I return to my computer later today, when I can read all arguments closely. Tinlinkin 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They apparently do update the signs (not the tiles, which are kept for historical reasons, but the utilitarian black signs). My argument is basically that the common name is the one that you see as you're entering and riding the subway; a map is simply a representation of what exists in real life. --NE2 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason for the extra parts of the names of stations on the map is because they are terminals. Otherwise, the station name would just be the street or avenue. I believe these area names for terminals are fairly new, and not consistant with other statoin names. I would say just use the street, avenue, etc. bmitchelf•T•F 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Proposal

message: I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. --A bit iffy 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the main proposal currently being discussed is about parentheses, but there have been long-running arguments such as on Talk:Birmingham New Street Station about what the "true" name of a station is, similar to the discussions here. --A bit iffy 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussions

message: I have listed all the stations for which there might be disagreement on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. Note that listing here does not mean that I or anyone else objects to using the name on the map or schedules. Please help fill in names from signs, schedules, and other official and third-party sources. Thank you. --NE2 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm proposing a review of all "varieties" of station names. I think I could use Larry's category for this. It doesn't have to be all at once, but if the map's name and schedules' names conflict with each other, I'll post them on the article's talk page and hold a discussion. It's not feasible to use one blanket system for naming all 470+ stations. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my comment above, I do not have all station articles in my watchlist. The discussion should be in a centralized area. The page created by NE2 seems to be a good place to start. Tinlinkin 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway station naming list page 

message: Someone tagged the Fung Wah Bus Transportation Inc. article in the talk page with a Start-class assessment and having a lack of references last month.  The article has improved immensely since it was tagged, and now includes the necessary citations.  How do I go about getting this article reassessed?  —Umofomia 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the unreferenced parameter (which you could have done yourself). I would leave it up to other editors if they want to change the rating, but to me it doesn't seem to be elaborated enough to be granted a B-rating. Tinlinkin 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks.  I didn't know whether it had to be someone on the project that should remove the parameter.  What are the criteria for the ratings?  Currently, the link in the template,Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Assessment, does not point to an existing article.  —Umofomia 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assessment scale for articles is standard for articles of any subject matter on Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Quality scale (a parent of this project) to reference the grading scheme. There is a general explanation at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. However, we in our WikiProject should set up our own page about article assessment (which would likely be much the same as others at any rate). Tinlinkin 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment of article 

message: Go to Talk:Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on requested move. 

message: There was a discussion on Talk:42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway) a while ago in which we determined that there is essentially no name for the "station complex" and that it is really two stations joined by a long passageway. Recently I split it, sparking a revert war with Imdanumber1, who claims there's no consensus. --NE2 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've went back and forth on the talk page for the past two months. I never saw a unanimous decision to split it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a big bold word stating what you wish to be done. We both shared what we knew about it, which indicated that it was clearly not one station with one name. --NE2 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally they were separate articles; I don't recall there ever being consensus to combine them. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These stations do not have the same name, nor have the same location. The only commonality between the two is the long passageway transfer. So I also say they should be separate. Tinlinkin 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway)]] 

message: The big question is: what is the criteria and the sources are we deciding on for coming up with a naming convention? Should we list proposed individual criteria and sources here and should we vote on which ones are the best ones to use? Tinlinkin 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harlem–148th Street (map/schedule name) is shown as 148th Street–Lenox Terminal on signs. The map name is little-used (   ). "Lenox Terminal" is also not used too much, but more than "Harlem" (  ) - and even the MTA sometimes uses it (). --NE2 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think our reliable source and original research policies apply to choosing a common name, as long as we can show that that name is in fact used. Please explain why the schedules still show Gravesend–86th Street when that's no longer the terminal, and the "Gravesend" has been removed from the map. --NE2 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question directed to the MTA's printers. Not to a user. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of stations have neighborhood monikers in them and are not terminals. So? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of those neighborhoods are part of the name; this one does not appear to be. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're going to choose a source that includes that name, when it is certainly not part of the station's common name, you need to justify that choice, not push it onto the MTA. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the MTA is the first place to turn to. And it has its published sources to prove it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if one accepts that the only sources for determining the name are the MTA, since when does that mean that we can only use their schedules, and not other MTA sources like the map and signs? --NE2 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that we couldn't use the map. But I I frown upon it on most cases because of space issues. There a lot of cases where the map has disadvantages. Grand Armp Plaza is one. I stated this earlier. And the 110th Street stations as well. Hoyt Street is another. And High Street. Signs are bad as well because they are the most outdated piece of literature. Like you said to GK tramrunner, someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations if someone picks station signage as the convention. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say signs are outdated? The ones on the Flushing Line were replaced twice when the old street names were removed station names and later restored. As for the verifiability, we're not saying "the signs say foo"; we're using them to choose a name. As long as another source uses this name, it's not a problem. This sort of thing is done all the time when choosing common names. --NE2 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Station signs do not count as a reliable source. A reliable source would be a piece of published information, like the map, timetables, etc. If they don't conflict with each other, then that's okay. Otherwise, not okay. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we're not stating the fact that the signs say "Foo"; we're working "behind the scenes" to decide on an article name. --NE2 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You may be confusing reliable sources with first and secondary sources. Anything the MTA publishes (maps, timetables AND signs) are primary sources. Photographs of signs are secondary sources. Anybody can document a transit system's signage. Both first and secondary sources are acceptable reliable sources. Whether and how they contradict each other is another matter. Tinlinkin 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Larry began moving articles to including en dashes because they were semantically correct. I don't know what he means by that, so we should ask him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hyphen is not the proper punctuation mark to use in this case, strictly speaking. But do what you'd like with the titles; I've become rather indifferent regarding the matter. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for a naming convention? 

message: Based on the format <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>):
#Derive station name from names used on the MTA subway map
#Derive station name from station signs
#Derive station name from schedules (stop listing)
#Determine station name from an evaluation of popular usage (common names)
#Determine station name from a combination of the above
#Use (division line) as the disambiguator
#:This is needed for disambiguation on those stations with just a street name (which is the majority), but it might not be necessary on stations with unique names (like Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall). --NE2 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual criteria

message: This section is for commenting on the issues and validity of the sources used in determining a station name, as opposed to the above section, which asks if the source should determine the station name.
#name as shown on The Map
#name as shown on schedules
#station signs
#:Station names set in mosaic may relect historical names and not the name used today or common usage. Tinlinkin 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harlem–148th Street (map/schedule name) is shown as 148th Street–Lenox Terminal on signs. The map name is little-used (   ). "Lenox Terminal" is also not used too much, but more than "Harlem" (  ) - and even the MTA sometimes uses it (). --NE2 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual sources

message: #Station complexes
#:No matter what name we use, we should bold the name for the station on each specific line in that section of the article. --NE2 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues/exceptions

message: I guess I finally have time to discuss the naming issue. So, I myself object to using station signage. I don't like the ideas of rollsigns because those are probably just as worse as station signage. So that would make me turn to a piece of information that is citable, verifiable and attributed to a reliable source and that is the MTA's published map/schedules. I prefer using these pieces of info because they are the most updated piece of MTA's information as service changes and station closures warrant. There are a lot of situations where one name is better than the other:
1. The map says Grand Army Plaza, the schedules for the 2, 3 and 4 includes Prospect Park as the suffix. I'd include it because the map is really tight on space on some areas.
2. The map says Woodside-61st Street, the 7 schedule says 61st Street-Woodside. I'd agree with the map because the Woodside is somewhat more important than 61st Street, as the neighborhood is more important than the street.
3. The map uses Dyckman Street, the A schedule uses Dyckman Street (200th Street). I'd use Dyckman Street only because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the extra parentheses look awkward in the article titles.
4. The map uses High Street, A and C schedules uses High Street-Brooklyn Bridge. I'd go with High Street Brooklyn Bridge as per the same reasons of no. 1.
5. The map uses 23rd Street-Ely Avenue, so do the V schedules, but the E says 23rd Street (Ely Avenue). Although I'm against using dead street names, this case breaks the tie.
These are just a few cases, and there are many more that follow these in their footsteps. But what's important is that if we want to keep our information consistent and most accurate, such as accessibility, closings and name changes, then these are the places to go to. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think our reliable source and original research policies apply to choosing a common name, as long as we can show that that name is in fact used. Please explain why the schedules still show Gravesend–86th Street when that's no longer the terminal, and the "Gravesend" has been removed from the map. --NE2 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question directed to the MTA's printers. Not to a user. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of stations have neighborhood monikers in them and are not terminals. So? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of those neighborhoods are part of the name; this one does not appear to be. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're going to choose a source that includes that name, when it is certainly not part of the station's common name, you need to justify that choice, not push it onto the MTA. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the MTA is the first place to turn to. And it has its published sources to prove it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if one accepts that the only sources for determining the name are the MTA, since when does that mean that we can only use their schedules, and not other MTA sources like the map and signs? --NE2 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that we couldn't use the map. But I I frown upon it on most cases because of space issues. There a lot of cases where the map has disadvantages. Grand Armp Plaza is one. I stated this earlier. And the 110th Street stations as well. Hoyt Street is another. And High Street. Signs are bad as well because they are the most outdated piece of literature. Like you said to GK tramrunner, someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations if someone picks station signage as the convention. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say signs are outdated? The ones on the Flushing Line were replaced twice when the old street names were removed station names and later restored. As for the verifiability, we're not saying "the signs say foo"; we're using them to choose a name. As long as another source uses this name, it's not a problem. This sort of thing is done all the time when choosing common names. --NE2 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Station signs do not count as a reliable source. A reliable source would be a piece of published information, like the map, timetables, etc. If they don't conflict with each other, then that's okay. Otherwise, not okay. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we're not stating the fact that the signs say "Foo"; we're working "behind the scenes" to decide on an article name. --NE2 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You may be confusing reliable sources with first and secondary sources. Anything the MTA publishes (maps, timetables AND signs) are primary sources. Photographs of signs are secondary sources. Anybody can document a transit system's signage. Both first and secondary sources are acceptable reliable sources. Whether and how they contradict each other is another matter. Tinlinkin 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Larry began moving articles to including en dashes because they were semantically correct. I don't know what he means by that, so we should ask him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hyphen is not the proper punctuation mark to use in this case, strictly speaking. But do what you'd like with the titles; I've become rather indifferent regarding the matter. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: If the naming convention discussion is becoming unclear and disjointed and drives potential interested users away, I agree. I'll take the heat for most of it because the format that I thought of didn't work out. I am also less willing to continue this discussion the way it is currently heading: a stalemate.
I see no less than five different opinions: myself, NE2, Imdanumber1, Pacific Coast Highway and BWCNY. My opinion can be swayed if I am persuaded by a strong argument, so I would rather support someone else's proposition than my own. And I have been disillusioned before by longstanding stalemates—particularly Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) with the discussion of United States major city naming conventions.
So how do we proceed towards a resolution? The one thing I think we can resolve is articles should not be moved without first discussing in this WikiProject. Tinlinkin 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution?

message: Since  is the new home for all of the service templates and , I no longer find  necessary, and there is no chance that it would be updated in the future. I substituted  on the first 30+ line templates, but NE2 systematically reverted these changes, saying that List of New York City Subway services#Time periods might be moved to the future. I don't see this happening anytime soon. Does anyone else see this happening anytime soon?
I also added non-breaking spaces ( ) in the line templates and bullets such as: • so as to separate the services and the time period details some may have and to keep the time period details in same line as the service it refers to, which he removed too. What should be done? Also, should the services be in bold in the service tables or not? I agree that the services shouldn't be in bold in the article body, except for cases where as in the 1 train article, if it refers to itself as it does, I guess it could be bolded. Thoughts? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Subst:NYCS time is a good example of what we use templates for: consistent formatting that may need to be changed. --NE2 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no chance that it would be updated in the future." Why? Just because the template hasn't been changed since it was created? Nobody may have an idea how to change it now, but that doesn't mean it would continue to be the best format. And there is no guarantee that the time periods section would always remain where it is, although right now it seems to be in its best place. To answer the second part, self-references are normally not bolded. Tinlinkin 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with {{Tl|NYCS time}} 

message: Which one looks better?
*5 
(1234)
*5
(1234)
--NE2 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest "edit war" 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names now includes most information. I listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names all the stations that are not currently at the timetable names. Please do not move any of these to "fix" them; I will not move any in the other direction while this discussion is ongoing. Note in particular the ones in bold, which, as far as I can tell, have never been at the timetable names. Many of these appear to be "outdated" names like 104th–102nd Streets and Sutphin Boulevard–JFK Airport, while others like 61st Street–Woodside agree with signage but not the map. I think this refutes using the timetables as our sole source of naming. --NE2 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of station name sources done except for signs and third-party sources 

message: As of today, the only page left of it is Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority.
But before, as I remember there were full rosters of each depot. Where are those rosters gone? please
GK tramrunner 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reliable attributable sources have been found for the information. --NE2 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No reliable attributable sources for what, for bus service numbers numbers?
As it always were for me, the street is the source. Just look what's written on buses. Especially in Brooklyn. ALl of them have Depot Badges.
GK tramrunner 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's original research: someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations. --NE2 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I might be able to provide a completely reliable source for these numbers. If so, I'll get right to moving the depot articles back to their original locations. Cheers, alphachimp 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great if you could. --NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYCT and MTA bus rosters, where are they? 

message: According to a 1996 New York Times article:
:"There are also beginnings of turnoffs, like one at Ditmars Boulevard, at the end of the N line in Queens. A 1929 plan called for the N line to go to Bayside, meaning it would have gone to La Guardia Airport and beyond. The turnoff is the tiny first step in the journey never made."
I don't see any "turnoff" on aerial photos, and, from what I've read elsewhere, some of the other examples given are not quite correct:
:"At Utica Avenue on the A line in Brooklyn, a bellmouth exists that might have gone all the way to Sheepshead Bay."
Actually the bellmouth is at Utica Avenue on the IRT; the IND station has an unused shell above it.
:"And in Manhattan, the E and C lines have the beginnings of a link to a never-built line going across the island and over the Williamsburg Bridge into Brooklyn."
All the plans I've seen show this line using a tunnel south of the Williamsburg Bridge.
Has anyone heard of this provision at Ditmars Boulevard? --NE2 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astoria Line extension to LaGuardia? 

message: See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#New York City Subway templates. --NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for deletion 

message: The way we list the J/Z skip-stop stations (between Myrtle Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport) in infoboxes is inconsistent. At most stations, like 121st Street, only the next station in either direction is included. This results in a gap in coverage, since the infobox doesn't show which stop is next south on the Z. When I edited Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport, Broadway Junction, and Myrtle Avenue, I added a "skip-stop" row to cover this. On Broadway Junction, there is also an "express" row for the unused express tracks.
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to best handle this? I see two separate issues:
#Should the "express" row be included? This actually only affects two stations - Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction.
#How should we deal with the skip-stop? Should the next station and the one after be included? Normally, with an express-local configuration, this would be done, but it looks awkward. Would a special line like (note: rush-hour peak direction Z trains skip to Foo) be better?
--NE2 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip-stop in infoboxes 

message: User:NE2 has removed the information on what subway car each subway lines uses on the A, C, E, J, M, N, and Q pages. He claims the sources I'm adding is not acceptable (there were photos taken from www.nycsubway.org). We need to discuss this thoroughly and figure what is an acceptable source for a subway car. The Legendary Ranger 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read Wikipedia:reliable sources; a photo that shows a car running on a line is not a reliable source that that type of car runs regularly on that line. --NE2 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing reliable sources with primary and secondary sources. A source, like an MTA page or newspaper article showing what cars run on which train route are primary sources, while a snapshot of a rollsign depicting what car the train route is on is a secondary source, both of which are allowed. Yes, I did read WP:RS. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the latter is only a source that a car of a certain type once had a certain rollsign reading. Rollsigns can be wrong; trains can be pushed into service on abnormal lines due to service disruptions. --NE2 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While reroutes can happen, nothing says that pictures are disallowed. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, PCH, that was kind of the answer I was looking for. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what NE2 is claiming is just because a subway car shows some service, doesn't demonstrate the car regularly runs on that service. (I do not say that I support NE2's decision here.) And please do a better job of paraphrasing my earlier comment. I don't appreciate that kind of copying. Tinlinkin 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, sure. Sorry about the copy-pasting, I wasn't sure on any way to put it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. All I wanted was an acknowlegment about that. But another observation: the two situations are not the same. If you want to discuss station signage (in an article), a picture of a station sign proves it. If you want to discuss cars used in a subway service, since the NYCS uses various types of cars, and rollsigns can say anything, it does not follow that a picture of a car showing a service symbol means the service uses the car regularly. Do you understand what I am trying to say? (This is a problem of logic, which you may not be familiar with.) I observe that certain car types operate consistently on certain lines, and the information in the articles is likely correct. NE2 wants a source that can definitely prove such claims. Something in prose that explicitly states "the C service normally operates using the R32 and R38 car types." Otherwise making a claim like that may need to be substantiated, as NE2 feels it does. Tinlinkin 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Many of the rolling stock assignments for train routes may be incorrect to begin with. Unlike service changes, the MTA doesn't announce which cars run on which routes, so they may be incorrect to begin with. Many of the rolling stock articles cannot be verified. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway Car Edits 

message: I have requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line). --NE2 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I have just finished adding all station photos on Commons to one of three pages: Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, Independent Subway System, and Interborough Rapid Transit Company. If you upload a photo to Commons, please place it on one of these, as well as in the appropriate subcategory of Category:New York City Subway stations. Thank you. --NE2 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons pages and categories 

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/IND Eighth Avenue Line/archive1. Thank you. --NE2 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The MTA shows a project of "EPK Joralemon Tube-Nevins". I know we've discussed this before, and partially based on chaining, we decided that the 4/5 platform is on the Lexington Avenue Line. But according to , the chaining of E (Eastern Parkway) actually continues to the double crossover just west of Borough Hall. --NE2 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaining for Eastern Parkway begins just after the scissors crossover upon entering the station. I've seen it myself. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what the map shows. So the MTA's funding documents as well as chaining show the Borough Hall 4/5 platforms to be on the Eastern Parkway Line, while the exit signage shows it as part of the Lexington Avenue Line. Do you object to calling it part of the Eastern Parkway Line? --NE2 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, since sources by the TA can back up that the station is on Eastern Pkwy, so I would support it being called so. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Borough Hall (4/5) on the Lexington of Eastern Parkway Line? 

message: I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. --NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject: buses 

message: What is the best title for Suffern station, currently at Suffern (Metro-North station)? I thought Suffern is managed by NJ Transit. And doesn't the Main Line and Bergen County Line formally terminate at Suffern? Tinlinkin 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suffern is managed by Metro North RR. It is in New York State juridition. I don't know why the article is stated it is managed by NJT. Here is the refference : link here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should look at the reference in the article; yours says nothing about Metro-North managing it, only stopping there. Also note NJT's pages about Suffern and Sloatsburg, an MTA-operated station. --NE2 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there is a picture, if you can't see it. Also adding another reference is MNR's about page that also answers to User: Tinlinkin, link here BWCNY 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's your source that says that Metro-North manages Suffern station? --NE2 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from the link link here: "Metro-North goes to 120 stations distributed in seven counties in New York State--Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester, Bronx, New York (Manhattan), Rockland, and Orange-and two counties in the state of Connecticut--New Haven and Fairfield." Note: Suffern, NY is in Rockland County. As stated, Suffern station is mange by MNR. BWCNY 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Metro-North goes to those stations. It doesn't necessarily manage all of them. Metro-North also goes to Hoboken Terminal, but they certainly don't manage that. --NE2 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: West of Hudson River, the train service is provided by New Jersey Transit with some train cars are owned by Metro North. Those stations in Rockland and Orange Counties do manage by Metro North. Just go to both websites or used an outside photographic source that can verify the claim. BWCNY 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're engaging in original research to try to show that Metro-North manages the station. On the other hand, I have cited a newspaper article that says that NJ Transit manages it. If you are claiming the newspaper is wrong, you should be able to find reliable sources that state clearly that Metro-North manages Suffern station. --NE2 03:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm engaging "original research" then please re-read my posts above stated MNR manages Suffern. How about, show me your newspaper source then I can counter it back with some documents proving Suffern is manage by MNR. BWCNY 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article, where sources should be:  --NE2 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I drop my claim, Suffern is owned and managed by NJT. There are official documents stating that Suffern is manage by MNR. But, I sent an e-mail to Metero-North and they reply back, "The Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines are operated for MTA Metro-North Railroad by New Jersey Transit under a service contract between the two railroads. In regard to the ownership of tracks and facilities, Metro-North Railroad has ownership over the New York portion of the Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines. Woodbine Yard is under Metro-North's jurisdiction and Hillburn is under New Jersey Transit jurisdiction. Suffern station is owned and managed operation by New Jersey Transit." -- BWCNY 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffern station 

message: Talk:Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line): in the case where everything but the schedule uses a name, that name has been found to be the most common. --NE2 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ding dong, the schedules are dead? 

message: I found out a way to subst a switch template, courtesy of help from the village pump's tech department. I implemented this at my sandbox subpage, and a user helped me as well: 
 results in A. Now look at the editing field. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer to type that rather than , go ahead. --NE2 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how would you feel about the syntax? I see that TLK has some ideas too, so he should probably paste them here. Same for other members. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? If you want to use it, go ahead. I'll continue to use normal links. --NE2 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You figured it out, so congrats to you. Again, it's your preference, so you do what suits you best. Tinlinkin 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:NYCS]] switch proposal 

message: I noticed that NE2 moved the Jackson Heights complex, removing the NYCS suffix. I have my doubts on this, as I don't think this is too cool of an idea. What I think we should do is include the word "complex" within the name title, similar to how http://www.stationreporter.net does that. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "complex" part of the common name? If not, we shouldn't include it. --NE2 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the complex idea. The idea of a complex changes from person to person. The (NYCS) suffix should do. And could we bring things up before making changes? It's kinda rude doing major things without asking for input. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't add "complex". There is an issue of disambiguation: If the title cannot be mistaken for something else, then disambiguation is not necessary. Here, it leads to an inconsistent look among the names of articles. I am neutral for now. Tinlinkin 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article titles are already inconsistent; some have the line name and some have (New York City Subway). --NE2 07:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Complexes 

message: I would like to know if NYCS map M.svg could use any changes before I make one for every service. Thank you. --NE2 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't consider as a map what you created. From my observation, you put little effort just to highlight the M line service with a bold line and dotted line. You are missing bunch of details just to be consider as a map. I suggest to you: 1. Add stations on that line and indicate the terminal(s) and transfer points.2. Indicated the service pattern by using a legend because the M line has bunch of service patterns.3. Indicate the Boroughs on the map. 4. ZOOM in the map. Here is an example drawn by SPUI in which he created the 2004 Subway map edition: --BWCNY 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not meant as a detailed map. It's a simple map showing the location of the service, like the one on Interstate 95. --NE2 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not use a  "related" interstate map to put on a subway article to give a visual look. Well if you want a simple map, the only thing is confusing is the the color and bold/ dotted lines. Just indicated when you create a legend with the service pattern and such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the labels for the terminals should be added. But should there be 3 line types for the M? Tinlinkin 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is sufficient to describe that. I added labels; what do you think of it now? Do you think I should use brown rather than red? --NE2 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to comment on that. I initally thought yes, but since the image demonstrates the route and not the service family, I don't think the colors matter. :Image:NYCS_R.png (likely to be superceded now) uses red, and I don't think there have been problems with that image. Tinlinkin 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I create more, do you think anything else could be improved? I'll probably wait a day or so anyway. --NE2 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The route for the 42nd Street Shuttle is going to look tiny. Labels for the boroughs that the route passes through would look good (also showing land boundaries between boroughs). Other than that, I can't think of other issues at this moment. Tinlinkin 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may decide to zoom in on the shuttles. What do you think about the map now? --NE2 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Tinlinkin 06:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so Tinlinkin doesn't think the colors matter, and PCH thinks it should be the color the TA uses. I think I'm leaning towards the latter. --NE2 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I will go back to the red line; it's not looking too good with the brown. --NE2 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look bad with the color, but whatever makes you more comfortable. For inspriation, look at the service tables at any subway station. They have a small city map, similar to what you're trying to do. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I decided not to zoom them; the map on IRT 42nd Street Shuttle is a bit small but definitely legible. Anyway, being SVGs, they can be cropped in the future without making a whole new map. Soon I will make maps of all the lines. --NE2 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps of services: input requested 

message: I've started making maps of the lines; what do you think about the format at right? --NE2 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Got some for lines other than subways? ---- DanTD 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made LIRR GIS data a while ago for :Image:LIRR map.svg, and can easily make individual line or service maps from that. I'd like to finish with the subway first though. --NE2 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I'll wait. ---- DanTD 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line maps