Template talk:New York City Subway

message: Why are the BMT trains shown as numbers? If this is some internal subway designation it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please make them the regular route names (when you click on "1", for example, under the BMT it takes you to the Q train).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlastOButter42 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll note, those numbers are given under "Unused/defunct." Those numbers are the designations that the BMT used to use for its routes before Unification. Prior to Unification, the BMT Brighton Line was served by the BMT 1; currently, it is served by the , which is why the link to BMT 1 goes to the article for the Q train. —Larry V (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMT: numbers? 

message: Could someone clarify the current sort order (
N 
Q 
R 
W 
•
1 
2 
3 
•
L 
•
G 
•
A 
C 
E 
•
7 
•
4 
5 
6 
•
J 
M 
Z 
•
B 
D 
F 
V)
please?  It would appear to the casual reader that
1 
2 
3 
•
4 
5 
6 
•
7 
•
A 
C 
E 
•
B 
D 
F 
V 
•
G 
•
J 
M 
Z 
•
L 
•
N 
Q 
R 
W ,
or a straightforward alphanumeric ordering, would make more sense, so they are arranged this way for a reason.  What is the reason?  Chris cheese whine 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 

message: Why have colors been added to this navbox? The line letter should not be represented with colors, for reasons already given here. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posed the question of colors to WT:NYCS. I see no unanimous decision there. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: This section does NOT belong there, because it is not related to the NYC Subway. I am requesting a consensus on this before deleting it from the navbox. AEMoreira042281 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other NYC transit 

message: I have added a free-use picture to the template, taken by contributor The Port of Authority. This is not a copyrighted picture. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Section is meaningless.  70.23.53.169 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Other NYC Transit 

message: Would it be best to sort the lines by color instead of alphabetical order? It may make much more sense visually to the wikipedia reader to see it like this. If nobody gets back within a week, I may do it myself. RES2773 (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wouldn't be best, it would be confusing. It would be also violate accessibility principles. Fitnr 02:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely understood, can you give me a link to the accessibility principles? Thanks RES2773 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ACCESS. oknazevad (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to show the subway ines 

message: I made an edit which changed the cut off point for the two groups of defunct designations from 1979 to 1985. It was reverted, and I have since changed it back. 
I don't think it really matters which cutoff we use, however many of the routes listed under the defunct pre-1979 group were in existence from 1979-1985. 
If people want to keep using 1979 as the cutoff, I have no objections, however if we do, the AA, CC, GG, LL, QB, and RR must be moved into the post-1979 group.
(I don't really feel strongly about this, but I suggest that if we do decide to make 1979 the cutoff, the double letter routes put into the post 1979 box should be formatted consistently with the other routes there too.)
MrLincoln (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. The elimination of double letters in 1985 is a good reason for that cutoff date. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1985 vs 1979 as cutoff for modern era of defunct lines