Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7

message: User:Eric B (who coincidentally is the author of Car History and Line by Line History) pointed me to some nice sources about past IRT and BMT history:  and . I think we can use these as references and reinstate all original service history sections that were removed. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only major problem with the old history sections was that they were a copyright violation. These changes in services are attributable; whether or not we have reliable sources at hand, or need to go through newspaper archives, or cite official maps before and after the change, sources do exist. --NE2 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice sources for IRT/BMT history 

message: Template:NYCS time has been replaced by template:NYCS time 2. The new one takes the following parameters:
*1 (first parameter): service label
*link (optional; only use for shuttles, where you want to link 42nd Street Shuttle rather than S (New York City Subway service))
*icon (the icon shown, such as nightsonly for :Image:NYCS-SSI-nightsonly.svg; not needed if time=text)
*text (the alt tag (mouseover "tooltip") on the icon, as well as text afterwards)
*time determines how it is displayed. Not including time shows only the service label, but this is not useful unless going through an intermediate service template. time=full shows the icon and text; time=text shows only the text. Anything else for time shows only the icon.
*dicon and dtext are the equivalent for diamond services. To show both regular and diamond services, use 
Template:NYCS br is a template used only inside the service templates; it formats the uses so a new line is added only when time=full or time=text.
Here are some examples with template:NYCS Lexington:
                 		Usage
no time parameter		Used in ordinary text, like "the IRT Lexington Avenue Line () is the busiest rapid transit line..."
time=show        		Used for transfers and next stations in infoboxes, such as on Lexington Avenue–63rd Street and 103rd Street
time=full        		Used for services in infoboxes, such as on 125th Street
time=text        		Used for transfers on service articles and services on line articles; see V (New York City Subway service)#Station listing and IRT Lexington Avenue Line#Station listing
and for the G on Queens Boulevard:
time=show	
time=full	
time=text	
--NE2 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really impressed by what I see. Sorry I was away as I wasn't near a computer for the week I wasn't here. However, I will be active on the weekends, especially on Saturdays. I will be updating the articles to the new format as I see on . That sid, I'll be getting started. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's nice though to be able to read the text, where space allows for it, rather than learning the symbols or mousing over them. The symbols don't quite work anyway in cases like the V, which runs weekdays only; from the perspective of a V rider, a weekdays-only service is equivalent to an all-times service. By the way, template:NYCS time2 was a temporary template; template:NYCS time 2 is the one demonstrated above. --NE2 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am definitely concerned about how the bus connection information would be kept up-to-date. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and bus routes (unlike train routes) are highly manipulable. Also, many of the individual station articles now have bus connections too, so that makes another thing that has to be changed in multiple places whenever there is new information. I don't really see the typical user relying on Wikipedia for bus connections, so I wouldn't put that information in multiple places that will tend to get outdated. Also, it is somewhat difficult to extract information from the table. Rather taking than a mere glance, one must actually read the table. It's far too wordy. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the bus connections; they should be on articles, but only the "special" ones - probably only the airport connections - should be on the line and service tables. I don't understand what you mean about not being able to glance at the table. On V (New York City Subway service)#Station listing, you can simply look at the beginning of each line of text in the transfer column to immediately see all the connections. For instance, I scroll to Roosevelt Avenue, look to the right, and instantly pick out 7EFGR. Then if I want I can look a bit more to the right and see that the G and R are part-time. --NE2 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes about new time template 

message: According to WP:NC#Special characters, the endashes (–) need to be removed from the station article titles and replaced with hyphens (-).  All articles originally had hyphens, but they were changed to endashes, and now they need to be changed back.  Some of them have been changed back, but there are many more to go.  I've started to do some myself, but there are way too many, and I think we may need a bot for this. –Crashintome4196 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself am most active on Wikipedia on weekends/Saturdays, so I will try to take care of the moves as much as I can. Unless there are some controversial cases, we should leave that to Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, except for Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations, the dashes are most likely to be on the controversial cases :) --NE2 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, please fix double redirects if you move any articles. --NE2 09:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove endashes from article titles 

message: I've noticed that there are fewer station article names with their suffixes removed, courtesy of NE2. Rather than start an edit war where he assumes his ideas are "better", I've decided to bring it up myself to prevent things from getting out of control. What's best, to include it or not to include it? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would always include the division and line name unless the article is about a junction station. -- Cecropia 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We should be precise when necessary. Nothing else has the name "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center". --NE2 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Cecropia, I will start moving back the articles to the appropriate titles. PCH agrees too, according to an earlier thread. It's not feasible to assume there is only one station that uses that name. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one station with the name "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center". What else could have that name? --NE2 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other stations that share 50th Street. 47th through 50ths is one of them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I asked. What's ambiguous about "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center"? --NE2 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the guidelines give advice on what to do, doesn't mean it has to be done. (Consider WP:IAR. Not all of the rules should be used for editing WP, mostly guidelines. They just give tips.)  Yet, you still persist on making the changes, when we, the people of this project objected to changing the name, yet you go on and do whatever you want. Who do you think you are, the owner of this project, dictator, who should always have your way? No. You may have made a lot of contributions to the project, but that doesn't mean you should start dictating how things should be done. Continue your behavior here and it will be taken accordingly. Consider that a warning, NE2. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not call others dicks. --NE2 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider me on it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, 42nd Street Shuttle, not 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway), and South Station (Boston), not South Station (MBTA station). Naming is inconsistent, but it's useful to use the guidelines to decide. In any case, I don't see this as a major issue; if these are moved back to "(New York City Subway)", I don't really have a problem with it. The problem of common names versus schedule names is much more important. --NE2 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Names of services are not as ambiguous as names of stations. As far as South Station is concerned, it is not only a commuter rail station and a subway station, it is also an Amtrak station and an intercity bus terminal, and the article combines all of those modes, so the (MBTA station) doesn't make sense there. Tinlinkin 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not what no personal attacks says. Anyway, I don't think Grand Army Plaza will be moved back. --NE2 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. You just think so because it is not the "so-called" common name. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name)) 

message: Geoking66 placed bullets in some station infoboxes, like in . I reverted, since this is one more thing that needs to be changed when the TA changes services. However, this can be done automatically with a simple change to template:NYCS time 2 and template:infobox NYCS. Do you think this is a good idea? --NE2 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, the bullets are decorative, more than anything. They are not essential to convey information. I like Geoking66's format, but I doubt whether it is necessary, and I lean towards no. If anything, don't change Template:NYCS time 2 to replace service links with bullets. Tinlinkin 12:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be a replacement, but an additional mode. Everything else about the output would be exactly the same as it is now; all that would be added is a new line to supplement the existing links. --NE2 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add a parameter, feel free to do so. But when would the parameter be called (i.e. when and where would the bullets show up)? Tinlinkin 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be another option in NYCS time 2, so you could say  or . Then the infobox code would be modified to include that below the station name. --NE2 06:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you support Geoking66's format then? Well, I still think it's over the top, but it's not harmful. Tinlinkin 07:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any real opinion; I'm just pointing out that if people want it it's easy to do. --NE2 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets in infoboxes? 

message: I noticed that you guys mentioned an image used for the infobox, using station signage. I remember a discussion thread stating Flamurai's idea on GIF images. They do render horribly, and it is the Wikimedia Foundation's goal to present free images to the community. That is why we should create SVG images of the signage, if we decide to go along with it. I was proposing something like this for the longest, except I wasn't yet introduced to free use images. I do, however, fail to see how :Image:Mastic-shirley-lirr.gif is fair use. Fonts of any kind are not copyrightable, and adding outlines and whatnot is are not enough to create authorship. The subway bullets, as well as pictures of signage are also so simple that they are probably public domain. I myself would think it is a good idea to use a station signage imitation for the name parameter in . If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to the Commons, let me know. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For station signage, I don't think it's necessary to create images as the signage can be rendered approximately and close to the actual in HTML. Tinlinkin 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hicksville (LIRR station) for an application of Template:LIRR style with Infobox Station. I think the simulated sign looks close enough to the actual. Tinlinkin 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's OK. Do you think you can do that for the Metro-North and the New York City Subway station signage? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to use infobox station on the subway, since there are too many special fields. --NE2 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal is not for the station infobox. It's for the NYCS infobox. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't normally use the MNRR, but you can see what I think the signage looks like at Rye (Metro-North station). White text on a black background usually looks bad on a web browser, so I won't apply that to the infobox (but I will try to work on an example anyway). Tinlinkin 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't work for the New York subway stations, then we could upload images then. I don't know if I have time to show an example using a picture, so I may or may not take a position in this discussion until I can access my art teacher's computer later today. He has Inkscape, and seeing that I myself am working on a New York City Subway project myself, I can do two things at once. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my attempt. It doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. Tinlinkin 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are implementing styles for the infoboxes, you can now insert style= <choice of LIRR, MNRR (for multiple lines), MNRR Hudson, MNRR Harlem, MNRR New Haven, MNRR Pascack Valley, and MNRR Port Jervis>. Tinlinkin 10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there's no excuse not to use what's on signage :) --NE2 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, I'm slightly okay with using signs as a rule of thumb. Although this proposal is based on station signage design, I have a high concern using signs as our naming source, due to the fact that station signage is not available everywhere, only at one place, which is the subway stations. The maps and schedules and line info is available in stations, mezanines and at home via the internet. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How would this work on stations that serve other lines, such as Stamford, New Haven, Poughkeepsie, and others like that? ---- DanTD 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not use the specialized style on a station like Penn Station New York. I would suggest the Metro North style is appropriate for the stations you mentioned because they are primarily commuter rail stations, and specify type=Metro-North and Amtrak station for identifying the multiple operators. Fordham is possibly problematic for a style, but since the Harlem Line is the dominant service, that is what I would use. Tinlinkin 19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three stations are in the same boat as Penn Station, so maybe we shouln't use it for those either. ---- DanTD 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break 1

message: Where is the proof that the line south of Ditmas Avenue is called "IND Culver Line" and not "BMT Culver Line"? I know right now, it is served by an IND Subway Line, but before the connection between Church and Ditmas Avenues was built and the forming of the Culver Shuttle, it was part of the BMT because it connected to the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger (talk • contribs) 
:It's part of a past discussion that took place in March/April. I didn't take any part of it. But seeing as they are two divisions separate, I think they should be split up. Leaving Church Avenue and ascending the ramp, going to Coney Island, the section is a part of the BMT Culver. Train Operators switch from B2 (BMT) frequency to B1 (IND) frequency. Besides, the elevated section was ALWAYS part of the BMT Culver Line. There is a summary about this from this website: http://nycsubway.org/lines/culver.html
--Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#BMT or IND Culver Line? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Are the acronyms (IND/BMT/IRT) necessary? What we really have to do is ask ourselves how much the BMT/IND split even matters. That's why the article is now at Culver Line (New York City Subway). When the Second Avenue Subway opens, will we call it IND Second Avenue Line? --NE2 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IND or BMT Culver Line 

message: I added the "image_caption" parameter to Template:Infobox NYCS. If somebody knows what the captions for pictures in the station infoboxes should be, as shown by example with 125th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), please add those. Tinlinkin 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image captions 

message: Is a navigation template like Template:NYSubway3 to put at the bottom of station articles a good idea? Tinlinkin 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this thread back in December (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 4#Template:NYSubway4), this idea was turned down because it wasn't believed to fit well in the station articles. Larry requested deletion, but I told him to notify the user who originally created it (as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_5#Template:NYSubway2). So they have been sitting there for the past six months, unused. I think they can be requested for deletion since they are pretty useless, unless you have an idea to spruce it up or put it into good use. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a bad idea. Imagine how many of these would be at the bottom of Fulton Street or Times Square! --NE2 12:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone might argue that the navboxes can initially appear collapsed, and thus need not take up too much space. But, obviously, Times Square would still have 9 lines of navboxes, and if the navboxes are big enough we may once again encounter the template limits as with last week's fiasco. So I also don't like those boxes here. Tinlinkin 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footer navigation boxes 

message: I noticed he has been recently discussing and editing other users' talk pages? The Legendary Ranger 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's only back to settle a dispute between me and NE2. I doubt if he will make a permanent return, but if he does, it will be a great revival to the WikiProject. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to thank him for taking the time to help settle the dispute. --NE2 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks to all. I have made a few edits, but don't have time to go at it full-bore, the way I formerly did. So I'm dipping a toe in the water, but not jumping in the whole way. Marc Shepherd 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Marc Shepherd Back? 

message: I have nominated quite a few templates for deletion (and also a category for renaming):
#Delete Template:Tempfull & Template:Tf3: used for one internal project page; now obsolete
#Delete Template:NYSubway1, etc.: from above post
#Delete Template:NYC bus, etc.: about bus connections as a consequence of discussion at Talk:Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway)
#Rename Category:New York City Subway stubs to reflect current project scope
-- Tinlinkin 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  is now also proposed for renaming. Tinlinkin 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things for deletion 

message: From Talk:1 (New York City Subway service), a proposal has been raised that BMT service articles of the form "BMT number" (such as BMT 13) should be renamed to "number (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service)". I agree with this renaming. Thoughts? Tinlinkin 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support as per proposal. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Marc Shepherd 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Support, but would prefer if "rapid transit" is added, since there were also numbered streetcar services, and the numbers overlapped. So either 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation rapid transit service) or 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit rapid transit service), although I would accept 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service) or 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit service). I don't think the "Corporation" is necessary. --NE2 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Support, but I do have a problem with article names longer than they need to be. Would "1 BMT rapid transit service" be possible? Also, there are problems with having articles named e.g., "8 BMT streetcar service." On the subways, we have separate articles for Line and Service. But streetcar lines were so numerous, and so many shared trackage, that a separate line and service article is not as meaningful. For example, we have Church Avenue Line. The line had three numbers: 8 and 13 simultaneously, and then it was 35, which the current bus still retains. Part of the reason for the change is that the Brooklyn Bus Corporation also had route numbers starting with 1 and the renumbering resolved the conflicts after NYC took over. So the numbers aren't as meaningful for surface lines. -- Cecropia 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are implying there is going to be a disambiguation problem with the original naming. (I had to read your post several times to catch the subtlety.) I say "1 (BMT rapid transit service)" and "1 (BMT streetcar service)" (I prefer parentheses here) is OK because we know what BMT is referring to in this context. More thoughts? Tinlinkin 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. --NE2 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMT service article name changes 

message: If you need to ditch that  tag for the bus connections on Far Rockaway (LIRR station), and you do, the source you can site is MTA's "The Map." The official LIRR page on that station confirms it too(http://lirr42.mta.info/stationinfo.asp?station=099). The only trouble is, I don't know how to write it out. ---- DanTD 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Connections on [[Far Rockaway (LIRR station)]] 

message: The template  is intended to duplicate old-time rollsigns, i.e., those pre-dating the current NYCTA color scheme. This template is used on many of the service articles, and has been for a very long time. There are several issues:
* On some browsers, it doesn't display correctly. For instance, on Bowling Green–South Ferry Shuttle, two of the "SS" rollsigns have parts of the S's cut off. The same occurs for one of the 5's in .
* There is no authority (no cited source) that this template even replicates the original signs accurately. In a number of cases, they are captioned "in a circle," suggesting that the signs were originally circular, even though the template can't reproduce them.
* I am not really convinced that a big letter inside of a black box is even that interesting. See, for instance,  and .
My sense is that  is over-used, and isn't even that interesting, attractive, or informative. Anyone else have that reaction? Marc Shepherd 02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that opinion. If the caption indicates the sign "in a circle", and they are 1967-1979 bullets, then my opinion is that we should upload images of the bullets. I found a website called transferpoint.bravepages.com (WARNING: Full of spam ads) where the user created some fonts based off the subway bullets. (I myself managed to retrieve a copy of the file whereas this can be done.) We can find the right color schemes for them. The 1967-1979 bullets are located here, and the 1979-present bullets are located here. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollsign template 

message: For discussion:
: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention
and corresponding talk page. Marc Shepherd 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming convention 

message: If it was from any source other than the NY Times, I wouldn't even mention it here, but you need to wonder where are they getting their info, and is there some peculiarity that is unknown here?
see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html.
When referring to the findings of Howard Roberts, the president of the NYCT, it says:
Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.
Weel, what do you think?
-Seidenstud 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flushing Line is part of the B Division with respect to signals, because it only connects to the Astoria Line, but A with respect to history and equipment. --NE2 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 7 train in the B Division? 

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) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:NYCS time}}]] 

message: Can someone direct me to the discussion (if there was one) where it was decided to remove navboxes from the bottom of the individual station articles? Marc Shepherd 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have news for you my friend: there was none. Yours truly NE2 had the nerve to unilaterally remove them. I didn't really care, but he should have discussed first. You see how every issue brought up in the project goes back to him? Problems have persisted with him since the beginning of January, and issues with persist until he is referred to administrative actions. And it is getting worse. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NE2's message, which I suppose was the same on all articles, was: "Removing the navigation template from articles on stations, none of which are on it, Replaced:  → using AWB" (from Kings Highway (BMT Brighton Line)). A navbox is expected for navigation between all entities that are within it. If an article uses the template, and it is not in the template, it just adds "what links here" clutter and may also imply that the template within the article is used for decorative instead of restrictive purposes. For example, at the Kings Highway station, why should it be expected that a user could jump to the service W? Tinlinkin 06:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad justification; I was just wondering if it was ever agreed to. Marc Shepherd 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox on station pages