Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 1

message: The subway lines' articles currently are by the designation (1, 2, A, B, etc.) (see :Category:New York City Subway Lines for a list). Since designations can (and do!) change, I think that's a bad way to title the articles. Better, imo, would be to call the articles Lexington local, Brighton express, etc. The designation's article (e.g., 1 (New York Subway)) can either redirect to the correct article or be a short list/history of which lines have been called "1". —msh210 18:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think that's a very bad way to do it.  I've done most of the work on the individual subway line pages, and if you asked the average New Yorker what the Brighton Express was, they would have absolutely no idea.  It is quite rare that the subway line name should change, and if so, it's very easy to move the page. Páll 20:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually quite common for the designation to change: it's happened every few years recently. And as for your contention that peopel don't call it the Brighton Express, (a) that's its name anyway, and (b) no one calls it the "green line". If you insist on not using "Lexington", at least use "4, 5, 6" ro something like that. (There are, in fact, two greens! — the 4/5/6 and the G.) —msh210
I just realized this page exists; you here may want to look at the discussion on Talk:New York Subway. Basically we've determined the official line names for all but a few stations, and are going with the format Name ({division} {line} station), as in 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station). A sample disambiguation page is at 59th Street (New York Subway). --SPUI 02:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Ditto on this page. Thanks to User:RoySmith for pointing me here. I'm writing an article now to help people understand the differing nomenclature the TA uses for lines, routes and stations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subway-line articles' names

message: The project page says:
:For subway stations, use <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>). The most commonly-used form of each station name should be used. This will usually be the name on maps or schedules (except under exceptional circumstances, which should be discussed on this project's talk page).
This is somewhat contradictory, because the "most commonly-used form of each station name" will often not be the full name on the published maps and timetables. However, the latter standard (the "official name" on the published literature) seems sensible, and one that the article pages appear to follow for the most part.
This must have been Larry V's intent when he renamed East 143rd Street (IRT Pelham Line) to East 143rd Street-St. Mary's Street (IRT Pelham Line) on April 21, 2006. However, when I altered the info box to match the article name, Larry V reverted it, saying that "St. Mary's Street is not part of station signage."
It is well known that the MTA's signage is not 100% consistent. I think a far more verifiable standard is to:
#Name the articles consistent with the documented name in MTA literature
#Use that name as the first bolded reference in the article body
#Also use that name in the info box
For the general encyclopedia reader, this will enhance readability and minimize confusion. Furthermore, it is a verifiable standard, as anyone working in this area will be able to see where we are consistent. Right now, what we have is most definitely a hodge-podge. None of us has the time to visit every station to see if the MTA has consistently used the official name in every piece of signage. Deviations from those names aren't documented anywhere, and hence, aren't verifiable.
Instead, even though East 143rd Street-St. Mary's Street has been renamed to match the MTA literature, the info box has its shorter "colloquial" name, and the article begins: 
:East 143rd Street (also known as East 143rd Street–St. Mary's Street) is a station on the IRT Pelham Line of the New York City Subway. 
This contradicts the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which suggests, "If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article...." Therefore, the article should begin:
:East 143rd Street–St. Mary's Street is a station on the IRT Pelham Line of the New York City Subway.
It seems almost obvious that the Infobox should use this title too, bringing everything into agreement.
Lastly, I would suggest that trivial abbreviations of the name should not burden the article's leading topic sentence. These colloquialisms aren't consistently included anyway. There are examples like:
:71st-Continental Avenue–Forest Hills (often referred to simply as Forest Hills–71st Avenue)
But there is no such parenthetical shortening at:
:163 St-Amsterdam Ave is a New York Subway station located in Washington Heights, one of the northermost neighborhoods in Manhattan.
And, most oddly:
:207th Street (commonly known as Inwood–207th Street and formerly as Washington Heights–207th Street) is the northern terminal of the IND Eighth Avenue Line and the A service
In this case, the purported "common name" is, in fact, the opposite of the truth. The common name is just plain 207th Street. There are many, many examples of similar confusion.
In summary, I suggest that the article title, topic sentence, and infobox should use the documented title in MTA literature, or whatever standard title we agree upon in exceptional cases. Trivial abbreviations need not be stated, or shoudl be put somewhere that they don't interfere with readability. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. I used to have an issue with the MTA literature names, since they usually don't bother to update station signage to match, but I don't really care anymore. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, when you say "None of us has the time to visit every station to see if the MTA has consistently used the official name in every piece of signage" … speak for yourself buddy =) I've been to basically every subway station for the express purpose of checking station signage. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for agreeing with the suggestion, and sorry for over-generalizing. Yes, I know there are people who've been to every station, but of course there are sometimes unannounced changes to the signage!!! Marc Shepherd 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You were quite justified in overgeneralizing, I'm just a little crazy. And I did notice some signage changes up on Pelham the last time I went… notably at Westchester Square-East Tremont. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardization

message: Obviously, we need infoboxes/succession boxes for the stations. I suggest a right-aligned infobox that includes information about the station, and contains the succession box within it.
As for templates, I'd suggest something like  to be 4 5 6. That way, if the MTA moves one of those somewhere else, we only need to update the template and not every station page on the Lexington Avenue Line.
We also need some standardization. First of all, colors when referring to lines (in station listings and general info). Standard html colors seem to work except for yellow (too bright) and light green. I suggest bfbf00 for yellow (N Q R W) and 7fff00 for light green (G). Also, do we want separate grays for shuttles vs. the L, or is one fine?
There's also standardization of station names; the two options are on the main project page. I much prefer the latter (using the line name).
Here are my other suggestions for standardization, which I have used in Eighth Avenue Line:
*Dates are to be Month Day, Year.
*Whenever a service is mentioned in an article, other than in some sort of table, if should be black and bolded to stand out from the other words.
*Articles about services are to mainly concentrate on describing which lines the services run along (and have run along). The line pages are responsible for station listings to avoid duplication of tables, and to reduce work when a service or line changes.
*Temporary outages due to standard events like maintenance and weather are not to be listed, except maybe for a section describing standard procedure in such a case. Outages that are unplanned or due to major construction, especially those that last long (like the recent fire on the Eighth Avenue Line), are to be considered as changes in services and tables and articles should be updated thus.
Please comment on the above, and anything else about the format of Eighth Avenue Line. --SPUI 22:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me like a very good idea. I'll be looking to see what you do with it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates has all the IND ones. I'm taking a break now. --SPUI 06:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#nested templates? - we can't use the line templates without using subst: for the infoboxes. Which means we need to determine the look ASAP. 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) contains my version; please comment. --SPUI 18:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your version just fine. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As do I.<nowiki></nowiki> —msh210 17:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I think the template should indicate both (a) whether the station is wheelchair-accessible form the street and (b) whether it's wheelchair-accessible for transfers. I've made :Image:Accessible.png for that purpose, but don't know what to do with it. —msh210 15:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, for transfers, why not include it next to each transfer in the transfer column? I'm updating 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) to use that. --SPUI 18:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, never mind, that one's not accessible on the Lex. I'll start a new one with the latest changes. --SPUI 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And a minor formatting issue - it looks a bit sloppy with the 'next northbound station' and southbound being on three lines. Maybe I should increase the width of the table, though making it too big would be bad for small windows and monitors. --SPUI 19:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Only problem I have is that the name of the station on the Fourth Avenue Line is "Pacific Street" N Train strip map R Train timetable. I believe the TA puts "Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street" on "The Map" so as not to confuse people making a transfer there. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a decision on the infobox, and soon!

message: In considering station articles, it occurred to me that there are a handful of stations that don't entirely fit the Station Name (Division LineName).
The most outstanding example is Coney Island-Stillwell, the only station (terminal) I can think of which isn't on any line. It is actually a union terminal. Within the station confines, the tracks are lettered (A-H) and not assigned to any line. Although there have been typical line assignments for particular tracks, this has never been set in stone. The BMT D (West End) chaining ends before entering the station from the north, and so does the BMT E (Sea Beach) chaining. Both levels of the Brighton Line (BMT A) end their chaining on the curve entering the station from the west. (Yes, Brighton Line--the Culver Line (IND B) chaining ends at the curve into West 8th Street).
So how to designate Stillwell's page? Historically, Stillwell is the site of West End Depot. When the new station was opened in 1919 it was known as New West End Terminal. However, Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT West End Line station) doesn't seem right to me, and separate articles for each line are just silly, unless they just briefly mention the station and services (connections, etc.) and then point to the main article. Some possibilities:
* Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT Union Terminal)
* Stillwell Avenue (BMT Coney Island terminal)
* Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT West End/Sea Beach/Culver/Brighton Line station) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Naming -- Dealing with Coney Island 

message: Other than the special case of Coney Island, there are several station complexes where there really should be articles that are not line-specific, because only having line pages is constricting to a description of the complex. I thought about this in considering an article about Broadway Junction, which is now the name given to all three stations at that location. While we can have articles for each line individually, there is also some need to describe the entire complex, where it has a unique history, and/or an interesting complexity. Other such stations are Queenboro Plaza, Grand Central, Times Square, and I'm sur we can think of others. How about:
*Broadway Junction (BMT/IND station complex)) or
*Broadway Junction (NYC Subway station complex)) or
*Broadway Junction (NYC Subway station complex BMT-IND) ? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The number 1 complex I can think of where the stations don't share common names is Broadway-Nassau. The TA already solved the problem of Broadway Junction for us. Likewise Canal St. BMT (the bridge station used to be known as Broadway). The downtown will get more complicated when the open the new complex near the WTC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: *I figure that goes without saying. I had in mind complexes (Times Square and Broadway Junction) which have a history of their own. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Naming -- Station complexes 

message: Oh, by the way I've finished with the templates for all IND and IRT lines, and listed them on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates. --SPUI 07:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! Thanks for doing all the tedious work! —msh210 18:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Line templates

message: Hey, I just checked and it seems that the subway tables have all been changed from HTML to Wikipedia table formatting. While I think it's a good thing, I have a couple of issues with the new table formats that I'd like to makre sure everyone agrees with. First of all, I think the use of "free transfer to" is redundant and not necessary, as I have never been on a subway system in the world where you have to pay to transfer to another subway line within the same system (and I've been on quite a few). Second of all, I do not like the tables left-justified and would prefer them centred. What do people think? Thanks! Páll 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'free transfer to' wording is to distinguish it from MetroCard-only transfers and transfers to other systems (specifically PATH). The 'transfer to' text is needed to allow that column to include more than just transfers, like former names. --SPUI 01:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all those "free transfer to" lines are a bit overwhelming. We do assume free transfers on the New York Subway. I think we could have a top line about the free transfers and elsewhere say "Metrocard transfer only" and "connection to PATH" which says "it's there but there's no transfer." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. Maybe for clarity change the last column heading to 'Transfers & Notes'? --SPUI (talk) 21:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway Line Tables 

message: Most if not all stations on the Flushing Line have two articles. For instance, 103rd Street-Corona Plaza (New York Subway) and 103rd Street-Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line). I'll merge these if/when I feel like it. --SPUI (talk) 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this; the articles now need cleanup (but so do the majority of station articles). --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate articles

message: I've gone through all the stations on the Lexington Avenue Line and added infoboxes. I also wrote a small tutorial at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway#Stations. I'd like a final look-over before I go and add them to other lines. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Station infoboxes

message: I'm thinking that it might be better to name the lines with the division at the front, like BMT Brighton Line. This would solve the disambiguation problem (for instance, there is another Brighton Line in the UK). It would also allow separate pages for the two 63rd Street Lines and Archer Avenue Lines. Existing links wouldn't need to be changed (except in cases of forced disambiguation, like when the Brighton Line article gets created for the UK line), but linking to the full form would be encouraged. This would also be consistent with the station naming convention. --SPUI (talk) 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree :) It would also be clearer when we deal with the Broadway L, the Lexington Avenue L (but call these BRT or BMT? And what about the els in Manhattan (IRT or Manhattan Elevated?) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just go with the three systems that they ended up as, or would have if they weren't abandoned (i.e. some of the Brooklyn els). --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to change naming convention for lines

message: I've applied my ideas to Grand Central-42nd Street (New York City Subway), having it as one page for all three lines. --SPUI (talk) 16:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-line complex example

message: I think most of the work that was done here is great, but I'd like to put in a strong (but respectful) objection to the use of colored text for links to subway lines.  There already is a convention for colors of links; things in blue are links, things in red are links to non-existent articles, and visited links get some kind of purple.  I find the line-based use of color to just be confusing, since it conflicts with this scheme.  It's cute, but I think it detracts from usability, which should be paramount in an encyclopedia.  A NYC native might "get it", but to a casual encyclopedia user, it's just visual noise.  From a purely visual perspective, I also don't like the tutti-fruiti effect it gives to a page.  --RoySmith 12:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I pretty much agree. It looked nice at first, but began to get annoying after a while. It won't be hard to change either. Anyone else want to weigh in? --SPUI (talk) 13:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with RoySmith. —msh210 15:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I also agree with RoySmith. It's a usability issue, and the idea of the colors in adequately presented in charts, color bullets, etc. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: objection to colored links

message: I'm interested in participating here.  What type of work is available for someone new to the project?  What can I do? -Etoile 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you want to do and your level of knowledge. For grunt work, there are still a bunch of line articles to be written or that need station listings. A lot of the station articles need infoboxes if you want to do that. Or you can just look at the existing articles and work on what looks interesting. --SPUI (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation 

message: I've done all the undone articles, save Rockaway, tho in the case of the Pelham and Jerome Av lines I've only done the stations. And none of you have talked to me. I am even down to doing station articles.--FourthAve 10:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  my bits =

message: The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Hey, is there an easy way to get some padding onto these infoboxes? The text runs right up next to them and it doesn't look very neat. ---root15 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox padding? 

message: The Transportation in New York City article is nominated as the United States Collaboration of the Week and deserves recognition for all the work that has been done to get this article up to snuff, and maybe ultimately to Featured article status. It's got potential: a compelling topic; thorough coverage of the material; better crafted sections linking to main articles; interesting pictures. Now all it needs is votes! As of now, West Viriginia has 12 votes, Rhode Island has 11 and TransNYC has just 3!?!? Rhode Island? West Virginia? Fuggedaboutit! Show your support and vote! C'mon, this is New York we're talking about. Once these other articles have been honored we need to have the votes for future recognition. Alansohn 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Transportation in NYC as US Collaboration of the Week 

message: I was very impressed with Geoking66's new infobox design; in order to streamline the infobox-adding process a bit, I've created a template based on it: Infobox NYCS. Examples can be found at Main Street-Flushing, 74th Street-Broadway, and 61st Street-Woodside. A warning: It is a little complicated at first glance; however, it is really not exceptionally difficult to understand. If anyone has any questions or comments about the infobox, feel free to ask me. —Larry V 07:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I would just like to see what the general feeling is regarding the names of stations as given in the article infoboxes. Do you think that the ordinal suffixes should be included (e.g., "42nd Street–Times Square") or left off (e.g., "42 Street–Times Square")? I personally think that they should be included. The name is "Forty-Second Street," not "Forty-Two Street." The MTA refers to stations like this in official documents; anywhere where they are left off are usually to preserve space (e.g, The Map and tables in documents). I also believe that they are left off of station signage so as not to confuse non-English speakers—and I have to assume that people who are reading the English Wikipedia speak English. —Larry V (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming under infoboxes 

message: It seems as if my infobox template (Template:Infobox NYCS) has pretty much been accepted (or at least not rejected), so I'm thinking of replacing the information at WP:NYCS#Infoboxes. Anyone have any problems? —Larry V (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any here. Besides, it's prettyful. : ) Pacific Coast Highway|<SUP>moo</SUP> 23:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox information on project page 

message: I think that (and I know that this has been duscussed many times) we should not use ordinals. Wouldn't it be a better idea to name the articles exactly the same way as the stations are shown on an official MTA map. Example, 125 Street instead of 125th Street. Some people think that it helps in pronunciation, but you don't write February 24th, you write February 24, but you still pronounce it as 24th. Geoking66 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, and no. The names given are confusing, and at many stations, especially at Divison A (IRT) stations, the oridnal suffixes still remain in the mosiacs. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinals 

message: I hate to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but this article naming deal is starting to bug me again. I still feel that it is best to name the articles with whatever is signed in the station itself, and simply mention other names in the first line of the article, after the initial bolded text (e.g., "95th Street (often referred to as Bay Ridge–95th Street)"), and add redirects for other common names. Maybe I have OCD or something, I don't know =) —Larry V (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might wanna take a look at WP:NC(CN). Pacific Coast Highway • blah 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense... that's kind of what I was thinking about anyway =) —Larry V (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that made everything ridiculously clear! Thanks lol —Larry V (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming ... again 

message: Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for NY articles needing photos - to use it, just add  to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list NY-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful!TheGrappler 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York]]