Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 9

message: I recently added an infobox to JFK Express, along with a map and bullet (shown at the right).  I made the bullet a teal color, basing it off this image from this page.  But I saw a JFK Express TV ad on YouTube and it said "just look for the blue signs," plus the bullet at the end of the ad was a little bluer than what I currently have.  There's a big different between teal and blue, so instead of guessing at it myself, I was hoping that someone who had a better idea could update the bullet image. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my recollection, what you've done is very close to the original color. Marc Shepherd 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine too. Could you make some for the AirTrain for Newark & JFK Airports as well? ---- DanTD 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got that bullet from RMarerro at Transit Spot (IIRC. His page kept changing). His colors were pretty accurate. All the colors wil vary from printing to printing. And a lit up color on a screen or sign will look different from a printed one, too.Eric B (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[JFK Express]] bullet color 

message: I've added some touch-ups to the station naming convention.
As it now stands, the proposal in a nutshell is that New York City Subway stations take the name printed on the official MTA system map, with a few additional rules for station complexes, spelling out abbreviations, and so forth. It is the view of several editors that this proposal now has consensus—which is not to say unanimity.
Many NYCS station article names have been edit-warred to death. For instance, by my count Cathedral Parkway–110th Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) has 12 different names. This convention represents an attempt to finally settle the matter for the vast majority of the articles.
Anyone who has not yet commented is encouraged to do so. Marc Shepherd 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subway station naming convention redux

message: Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (vice-Chairman of the MTA) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to the MTA, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! Mrprada911 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WikiProject New York City Transportation]] article on [[Andrew Saul]]

message: Take a look at the stations table in the article for the 2 service. In the column for "Subway transfers," you'll see that a mixture of styles is employed. For instance, the row for Times Square–42nd Street displays like this:
:     
There's a mixture of three styles in this entry: a bare service label (e.g., ), a service label with numerical superscripts (e.g., ), and service labels with icon superscripts (e.g., ). This inconsistency occurs in many of the service articles.
Service labels with icon superscripts are our most recent format, employed in the majority of the subway articles. Numeric superscripts are an old style, now deprecated. If a consistent style were used, that same entry would look like this:
:
The source that produces this is: 
The only problem is that the 2 appears on this list. This isn't correct, because the column is labeled "Subway transfers." The article is about the 2, and a train can't transfer to itself. Unfortunately, the templates as now designed have no capability to exclude the line you are talking about.
A fix for this would require an extra parameter—something like this: . The template code would "exclude" the service sign named by the "exclude" parameter. Although this solves the problem, it would require all of the service templates to be modified. I don't want to make such a change without discussing it first.
I can think of only two other solutions. The first is to not use templates in that situation. The advantage is that the templates don't need to change. The disadvantage is that you wind up with "hard-coded" data that can more easily become outdated when service patterns change. This is the problem the templates are meant to avoid in the first place.
The other solution is to go ahead and use the templates as-is, and never mind the fact that the 2 is shown "transferring to itself." An example of what this would look like can be seen in the article for the R service. In that article, the relevant column is labeled "Services," rather than "Subway transfers." Obviously, R appears in every row, a flaw that perhaps only purists would object to.
Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about this when working with the templates, and experimented a bit, and came to the conclusion that it's more trouble than it's worth. Hard-coding it into the service article also allows us to show same-platform wheelchair access, like on W (New York City Subway service). The formatting could probably use a bit of work, with fewer newlines. --NE2 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a "templatized" version for 1 (NYCS), 2 (NYCS), and 3 (NYCS). It's a bit tedious to implement, but I believe over time it will repay itself. I do agree that "hard coding" allows you to enter more information, but my experience is that where there is hard coding, there are invariably errors, and those errors are very hard to find. Marc Shepherd 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYCS service templates: an arcane issue

message: I found an "original research" tag added to the Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station) article that I don't feel belongs there.
An interesting feature of this station is its resemblance to a typical elevated New York City subway station.
Doesn't the very image of the station disqualify the use of that tag? ---- DanTD 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That tag was probably a reaction to the word "interesting," which normally shouldn't be in an article unless a verifiable source has said that. Marc Shepherd 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station)]] tag dispute 

message: , this template is not one of the templates listed [] as one of the templates that should be used in articles under the scope of this particular WikiProject. This is why I have, thus far, for the A division lines (barring a revert), I have substituted  for it, while keeping the maps that member NE2 has made as the image. If this should be in list of templates to use for this project, please place it there. --AEMoreira042281 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are services, not lines. You could have just placed it on the project page; this isn't a bureaucracy. --NE2 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox NYCS service 

message: For instance:  They've also opened post-1987 (?) to the public. --NE2 20:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. I think they realized that they were losing eyeballs, and that they'd make more money (from advertising) by making the service free. Marc Shepherd 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-1922 New York Times articles now available for free

message: Based on this, the  is the longest subway route in the world. Seems far fetched, dosen't it? Pacific Coast Highway {blab • stalk} 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the  train's route is the longest in the world. But 33 miles is pretty long though. If I were to walk that much, I don't think I'd have a leg to stand on, let alone walk on. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The circular Line 2 of the Seoul Subway is 62.0 kilometers (37.4 miles) in circumference, beating out the A. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest in the world? 

message: Hey Marc, PCH, TLK and all others. Number1 here. Just checking up on progress and to apologize for my absence from WP. Lack of computer resources forced me to cease editing temporarily (I'm actually editing with a PSP). I should resume to full time editing by October. Catch you guys later. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up guys? 

message: I've been finding so many more active New Jersey Transit stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places, many of which are former Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Stations. Fortunatley, many of the DL&W station links I've seen are still red. Anyone else find this out about them? ---- DanTD 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NJT Stations on NRHP 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Transportation in New York City}}]]

message: Only one active Long Island Rail Road station doesn't have an article on it, and that's Pinelawn (LIRR station). And why won't I start it, you ask? Because I'm getting a lot of comflicting info about the history of the station, some of which indicates that there were TWO stations there at the same time. --DanTD 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE:Pinelawn (LIRR station) has officially been added as of this hour. Therefore all articles on active Long Island Rail Road stations are now finished being added. All that's necessary at this point is to add more data to the station articles themselves. ----DanTD 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on a job well done. Marc Shepherd 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wish I could've done more. My only concern, besides getting everything right, was that I didn't end up hogging all the future articles. Was there anybody else working on LIRR station articles, since I started adding them back in December 2006? Because I only saw two of them added by other people. ----DanTD 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one else has jumped in since December 2006, it's a safe bet you had the territory to yourself...at least for now. It's actually good that way, as it ensures the articles are created with a modicum of consistency. If someone felt you were hogging article-creation bandwidth, rest assured they would have said so. Marc Shepherd 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One LIRR Station left! 

message: An editor has created Hanover Square Station, Seaport Station, and Chatham Square Station, all referring to the proposed Second Avenue Subway stations. All three stations are part of Phase IV, which would not be constructed till 2020 if the current schedule holds—and history suggests it probably won't. At present, Phase IV is not funded, and the 2020 date is merely a guess. Not much can be said about those stations as individual article subjects until they are much closer to fruition.
I have accordingly proposed them for deletion. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three articles for deletion 

message: I am thinking of creating a patricipant list, according to what I saw at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, which has its own subpage. I think that to add more detail, we too should create a more central list with a subpage (maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants. I'm certainly not suggesting we should do what they do, this is just a mere suggestion on the idea. What do you guys think? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care much either way, but it certainly appears that the U. S. Roads project has far more participants, and hence, more need of a separate page. Marc Shepherd 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participant list 

message: It seems that the  won't see Forest Hills for a while. In fact, the General Order in effect has no ending date. I am considering using the GO notice as a reference and edit the article as needed. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term service changes 

message: The MTA's Trip Planner just happens to spit out the schedule for the  trains that run in service to and from Brooklyn. They leave Whitehall Street-South Ferry at 8.58, 9.08 and 9.18 pm for Kings Highway. They leave Gravesend-86th Street for Astoria at 6.25, 6.44 and 6.56 am. The trip planner won't let me link directly to the schedule table, but the results will show up when done manually. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (W) service to Brooklyn 

message: User:imdanumber1 believes it should be broken down into subsections, but I don't agree because the service history is not that long and it is understandable even if the subsections were not there. The J/Z and Q articles have their service history broken down because they are so long that breaking it down into subsections make it more understandable, but this doesn't apply to the 1. If subsections are really needed on the 1, then it should be put on every other service history. what do you think? The Legendary Ranger 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me "Much ado about nothing." I don't have a clear preference for either version. At this point, it is a very poorly written article—really just a loose collection of miscellaneous facts. When and if someone turns it into a real article, I have no idea what the right section breakdown will be.  Marc Shepherd 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service History for [[1 (New York City Subway service)]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius McCollum --NE2 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion

message: Is there any reason adding this logo  to the infobox on the 42nd Street Shuttle is so difficult? ----DanTD 15:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times Square Shuttle infobox 

message: I recently found a link to an Excel sheet that contains every single station's annual ridership in between 1905 and 2006 with years inbetween. How can we incorporate rail pass box or at least something on a similar manner but still keeping the style of Infobox NYCS? Geoking66talk 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridership figures (annually) for individual stations in infobox 

message: At this page, it is suggested that metro lines use the blue pictograms, since red are generally for railways a la Amtrak. Would anyone object if I changed our route diagrams over to blue? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I guess some of the symbols we use are only available in red. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just use the route color? Yellow for the  and so on... Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As LarryV noted, some of the symbols aren't currently available in blue. That's really the only reason why red was used. Marc Shepherd 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route diagram colors 

message: I've created Template:IND Concourse Line and Template:BMT West End Line. Hope they're satisfactory. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrific. There are only 1 or 2 left, I think. (I'm working on the diagram for BMT Sea Beach Line in my sandbox at the moment.) I particularly like . I had been dreading that one, which I knew would be especially complex. Marc Shepherd 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New route diagrams 

message: I've been wondering about these two issues for quite a few weeks, but now I'd like to address them, to find out how others here feel;
*Considering their histories, should the articles on the Manorville Branch and Sag Harbor Branch be combined into one article, with a list of former stations and current stations along these branches as well as the Montauk Branch?
*Should there be a whole new article on the Garden City Branch, which used to connect the West Hempstead Branch, Hempstead Branch, Main Line and Oyster Bay Branch?
Feel free to discuss the issue among yourselves. ----DanTD 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does appear that Manorville Branch and Sag Harbor Branch would benefit from consolidation. It does not appear that Garden City Branch has enough meat to justify its own article. Marc Shepherd 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with merging Manorville and Sag Harbor. I don't know where you're getting the Garden City Branch name from; this was the old Mineola-Hempstead Hempstead Branch, abandoned in 1965. There is a Garden City Secondary that continues east from the junction with the current Hempstead Branch to some industries; this could probably be covered in Central Branch, which it was part of, or in Hempstead Branch. --NE2 17:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you check out the articles on West Hempstead, Country Life Press and Mineola Stations. These three and more have an external link to the Unofficial LIRR website, and the "Trains Are Fun" website, and at least one of them has the name Garden City Branch. As for the Manorville & Sag Harbor Branch articles, I say the Manorville section should be it's own chaprter, and each existing link to that article should be redirected to the Sag Harbor Branch article. ----DanTD 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources that use that name? --NE2 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that's not reliable? ----DanTD 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, here you go. Scroll down to the section from 1966. ----DanTD 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm saying that trainsarefun.com is not a reliable source. --NE2 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like to know why? Once I'vr read that phrase, I began to realize that I've heard the name elsewhere. Trainsarefun.com tends to contain other LIRR-related details that even other non-official sites like Arrt's Arrchives and Robert Anderson's Unofficial LIRR History website don't have. Even if there's no call for an article on this segment, I will continue to use the site, where I believe it can be helpful. ------ DanTD (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically because it's self-published, and contains errors (such as calling that the Garden City Branch). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NE2 23:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most websites that aren't run by government agencies, businesses or non-profit organizations are self-published. Aside from the use of non-official names as "Garden City Branch," the site has a multitude of photos, maps, and historical information that anybody who's been to these areas can confirm is true. ----DanTD (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most websites are not reliable sources. If the maps were created by a reliable cartographer, they should be fine; photos are generally acceptable sources but should be replaced wherever possible with better sources. Text will not be reliable unless it's quoted from elsewhere, though it is a good way to know what to look for in reliable sources (such as textual descriptions or maps). If you live on Long Island, you should be able to find Vincent F. Seyfried's LIRR history in libraries; I've placed the first two volumes on Wikisource: South Side and Flushing, North Shore & Central, but the rest are still copyrighted. --NE2 07:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Trainsarefun.com includes info from Vincent Seyfried. Here's one now(http://trainsarefun.com/lirr/seyfried.htm). Here's another(http://trainsarefun.com/lirr/southsiderailroad/SouthSideRailroad.htm). His name is also included in the site's station history article(http://trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm). Sadly, I haven't lived on Long Island in eight years, and have to rely on vacations up north to do much of my research, hence my effort to try to get you to seek proof of the maps and articles related to Suffolk CR 83 last month. ----DanTD (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a lot easier to talk about specific issues than to make general statements about a source's reliability, or the lack thereof. The original question was whether to make an article about Garden City Branch, and I think the clear answer here is no. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original question was whether or not to merge the Manorville & Sag Harbor Branch articles. The question about the Garden City Branch article was secondary, and since we all agreed that it wasn't necessary, I agreed not to write one. ----DanTD (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd merge Manorville into Sag Harbor, since the Manorville Branch was built as part of the Sag Harbor Branch. The "Garden City Branch" was the original Hempstead Branch, so it should be listed as a former Hempstead Branch on that list. --NE2 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just did it, although I'm pretty sure I'm missing some stations, including one that was noted for having segregated waiting rooms. ----DanTD (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE -- The Manorville Branch article has been redirected. I also realized it was you who started this one, NE2. I hope you're not upset with me redirecting this one. ----DanTD (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not upset. I agreed with it above. --NE2 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former LIRR branch questions 

message: Okay, since at least three of us agree that the the Manorville & Sag Harbor Branch articles should be merged, my next question is how to go about doing it. Should I write a whole new title with both, and redirect both titles to it, or should I just merge the Manorville Branch as a chapter of the Sag Harbor Branch article as I originally suggested? As for the Mineola extension of the West Hempstead Branch that I referred to as the Garden City Branch, while I agree not to make a whole new article about it, I'd like to add it to the list of former lines, since it's only fair that the Wading River Branch is covered on that list. ----DanTD (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd merge Manorville into Sag Harbor, since the Manorville Branch was built as part of the Sag Harbor Branch. The "Garden City Branch" was the original Hempstead Branch, so it should be listed as a former Hempstead Branch on that list. --NE2 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just did it, although I'm pretty sure I'm missing some stations, including one that was noted for having segregated waiting rooms. ----DanTD (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE -- The Manorville Branch article has been redirected. I also realized it was you who started this one, NE2. I hope you're not upset with me redirecting this one. ----DanTD (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not upset. I agreed with it above. --NE2 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now, how to do it

message: In regards to this header, there are no station articles for the Staten Island Railway. I've been wondering why, and I think it's about time that I brought this matter up. I don't see why the SIR shouldn't have any station articles, and it is pretty much like the NYC Transit Subway system. I don't even recall seeing this matter from past discussions in the archives, so this is a pretty new topic. Any ideas on what to do here? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. If they can be made into stable articles like the subway, then yeah.Mitch32contribs 11:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if you want to write them, go for it. I might even feel like doing a few if I'm in the mood. After all, I've written about LIRR stations, a few Metro-North stations, and some Metra stations as well. ----DanTD (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staten Island Railway station articles 

message: …is now on Wikipedia at :Image:Staten Island Railway.gif, and used in Staten Island Railway. Obviously, this is not good. I think the standard thing to do in this case would be to create a small map (a la :Image:LIRR map.svg), along with a route diagram. I can whip up a quick route diagram; can someone with some 1337 gfx 5k1llz make a serviceable map? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted that edit. The perpetrator was an obvious sockpuppet for another editor who has been repeatedly indef banned (multiple handles) for uploading copyvio images. Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, it would still be nice to have a map. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I agree...just not that map. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTA's Staten Island Railway map 

message: Hello readers of WikiProject NYC Public Transportation!
I just wondered if any of you would be interested in joining up to Train Spotting World, a wiki just for railways and similar things! We are also in the process of setting up several "Workforces", similar to WikiProjects, and were wondering if anyone wnated to help!
Various wikipedians have goine over there, including myself, User:Tbo 157, User:Slambo, User:EdJogg, User:Timtrent and User:S.C.Ruffeyfan.
If you want more info, or have joined up and want some guidance, let me know here or there on my talk page!
Thanks,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegoblin7 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wiki specially for Trains... 

message: I've noticed the articles for the SIR stations are different from the New York City Subway ones, being that the SIR ones have "station" in the article names while the NYC Subway ones don't. Also, we do not have an infobox for the SIR stations. Should we remove the "station"s from the articles and how do we create an infobox? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most railway articles actually have the "station" somehow (e.g., Jamaica (LIRR station), 14th Street (PATH station), King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, etc.). I forget the rationale behind leaving it off the NYCS articles (I doubt there really was one), but it's certainly too late now to change them. But I would leave the SIR ones alone. As for the infobox, I'm sure Template:Infobox NYCS can be used. I've added an "SIR" parameter that changes the tag under the station name to read "Staten Island Railway station". Other changes have to be made, of course; I'm still reacquainting myself with the template I wrote so long ago! Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure what you mean, so I opened up another discussion at the template page. I think you should take a look at it and follow my suggestions. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staten Island Railway stations 

message: Who actually operates LIRR lines? The LIRR itself? Also, who owns them? The MTA? (This is for Template:Infobox rail line.) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, originally I thought it was the MTA, but now I'm not sure. The MTA is the operator, as they operate the subways and NYC buses. The City of New York owns the subways and buses, so I think the LIRR is owned by someone else. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Long Island Rail Road article says the LIRR is publicly owned by the MTA. But that's not really what I'm asking; I'm asking who owns the LIRR trackage. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual LIRR company ("MTA LIRR") would own the trackage, except to Penn Station. --NE2 13:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it does not own the East River tunnels to Penn Station and the Sunnyside Yard which I believe is own by Amtrak. -- BWCNY (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Island Rail Road ownership, operation 

message: User:NE2 has made a map of the Staten Island Railway for use in the article, and I thought I would bring it to the project for proper review and feedback. I stated on NE2's talk page that the stations could be added, as well as the closed branch lines and stations. Anyone else has any other opinions? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This map would likely be scaled down to be used as the map image for Staten Island Railway, so I wouldn't want to put the stations. Adding the termini would be fine, as well as a couple of subtle lines for the closed branches. But we don't want it to be too fancy. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staten Island Railway map 

message: Just stopping by to wish everyone at WP:NYCPT a Merry Christmas and happy holidays! —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here! Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merry Christmas!!! 

message: I have nominated :Image:8 (New York City Subway service).gif, :Image:IRT Third Avenue Line.jpg, and :Image:Third Avenue El.gif for deletion; their deletion notices can be found here.
In the same vein, what shall we do about the other MTA images Trulystand700 has uploaded? These include:
*:Image:Fulton Street Transit Center Project.jpg‎
*:Image:Image-Station Of The Second Aveune Subway.jpg‎
*:Image:Second Ave Subway CGI station.jpg
*(did I miss any?)
Are we ever going to actually use these images in the corresponding articles? If not, I could probably delete them without going through the WP:IFD process. Orphaning is a legitimate reason for deletion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trulystand700's images for deletion