Talk:B (New York City Subway service)

message: It says in the article that the  has two stations with the same name, Seventh Avenue. I think that's wrong, but I'm not sure. Doesn't the Seventh Avenue in Brooklyn have service by the ? I know that the Seventh avenue station in Manhattan is correct, however. Maybe it used to be like that, perhaps a change in routing is to blame, but if you know the answer, please correct the article.
There is a 7th Avenue for the F, but it's not the same as the one on the B and Q. In other words, there are two "7th Avenue" stations in Brooklyn. 165.155.128.133 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Stations with Same Name 

message: Why is this duplicate photo continually added?
thumb|250px|right|Bronx-bound B train of R68As at Kings Highway
The R68A photo is very poor quality, overexposed with a strange sun streaks AND the exact same angle as the R68 photo. Can someone please take a better photo of an R68A serving the B to replace this one? Acps110 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, if you look carefully, they are not the same. Besides, one is an R68, while the other is an R68A.--Davidng913 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Photos 

message: The history section of the article seems to be missing the period (I believe beginning in 1968 and going at least through the 1970s, maybe 1980s) when the B terminated at 57th Street during non-rush hours and was extended to 168th Street only during rush hours.  I believe during that period that at night it just ran as a shuttle in Brooklyn, but I am not certain. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 57th Street Terminal

message: Now that the reconstruction project is almost over, it should be added to the history section. When did the express service suspension begin?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Level Crossing (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We will just edit it in when it is actually over. No point of editing it early since it would probably be reverted by other editors as Wikipedia is about the current and not the predicted future.--iGeMiNix 02:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Line Reconstruction to History Section

message: You reverted some of my additions to the article saying "useless and broken citation" and "trivial information with no reliable source." These are from service change fliers in my collection of transit memorabilia. These are as official as the documents uploaded to Joe Korman's site. Just because something s not online does not make it unreliable. Thank you for understanding.
--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just because something is not online does not make it unreliable 

message: An "in popular section" was added in this edit yesterday. I reverted hat addition because it not only lacked reliable sources but also was trivia. It was re-added today with sources, but I do not think it satisfies MOS:POPCULT:
MOS:POPCULT says: . My objection to this addition is twofold. First, at least one of the cited sources (a wiki) is not reliable, while the other source is a transcript and so is not a secondary or tertiary source. Second, I have watched this particular episode of Futurama before, and the episode literally "merely mentions the subject's appearance" (Bender pretended to be a B train stopping wherever he felt like). It is for these reasons that I've removed this section again. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture section