Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5

message: Imdanumber1's suggestion reminded me of something. We have to be careful when we branch out into areas where we have not previously worked (e.g., LIRR). There are surely some hard-working editors who have put a lot of time and effort into these articles, and I don't think they'd appreciate it if we just barged in, declared that the articles are within our scope, and just start making changes as we see fit. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MTA themselves are some excellent resources since they have addresses for the stations and everything. And as I visit my cousins in Nassau County during Christmas, Winter, Spring and Summer break, they usually stop by LIRR stations, and I take a few snapshots with their cameras, and I'll start getting to this when I get my own camera. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some pictures from the New York Transit Museum, taken a few days ago, including some nice stock pictures of the interiors of several vintage cars. I'll get around to this in a few days. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't think you understand what Larry is saying. It might be a good idea to allow regular editors from newly-added parts of this project to realize that "their" articles are now part of a project, and not try to barge in with naming conventions and other changes. --NE2 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be prudent to invite the major contributors to the project. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution 

message: Happy New Year to all at WP:NYCPT and to all a good night!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy New Year 

message: Is it possible that we can create a wikitable for the subway services and subway lines? We have an infobox to sub the hard-code one, should we create a wikitable to sub the hard-code one? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, Larry, the project has an infobox (Infobox NYCS) to replace the hard-code one, shoudn't we have our own project wikitable to replace the hard-code one (probably to be named Wikitable NYCS)? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting some sort of template for the table? I've never seen this type of template. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; Is it possible we can do this? I'm going to the help desk for some help on this. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Wikitable NYCS 

message: In the G train article, it said that beginning in 2007, the G line will be extended to Church Avenue. I don't think we should include any future events because they can change without warning, even though right now we have proof. I think we should remove that until it happens. Do you agree or disagree? The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it changes, we can change it too! That's the beauty of Wikipedia. And to your question, disagree. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it does change, then we just simply remove the notice. That's all. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with leaving the notice, but it should be very clear that the change is reported. I disagree with the current wording of the article, which makes it seem as if the change is from an official source. Something like, "According to some reports, the G will be extended" should suffice. Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is that New York Daily News article that was referenced; it's reliable for anything that's not celebrity gossip =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... I saw the superscript 5, went down to the references, and clicked on #5. I'm going to fix the reference format. --NE2 06:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future G train service change 

message: some retard is vandalizing the R68 page again. I think we oughta protect that article. The Legendary Ranger 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Report it to Larry or Achimp, they'll notify the user and sprotect the article. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semiprotected. alphachimp. 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what are we going to do with page. they just keep vandalizing. The Legendary Ranger 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R68 PAGE 

message: I think we should create our own under construction tag in order to prevent other editors from editing our tables while we are expanding or revamping them. Any suggestions on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very bad idea. Wikipedia should be able to be edited by anyone at any time. With a few exceptions we sincerely try to make that possible. The preview feature is there so that we don't have to tag articles as 'underconstruction'. alphachimp. 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the best thing to do is just get it all done in one shot. Use lots of cut-and-paste for repeating wiki-code, and try to incorporate parts of the old tables so you don't have to do so much typing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underconstruction tag 

message: I've started tagging talk pages with importance (:Category:New York City public transportation articles by importance), and before I get too far I'd like to discuss how to decide how important something is. Here's my proposal:
*Top: Transportation in New York City and major systems, as seen by the public (LIRR, NJT, possibly New Jersey Transit rail operations?, but not Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority or AirTrain JFK)
*High: individual heavy rail and light rail lines and services, operating and holding companies, less-major systems, the most major stations (should former major terminals like Exchange Place be here?), some lists like New York City Subway rolling stock
*Mid: major transfer stations, individual surface lines
*Low: other stations, miscellaneous articles like minor bridges
--NE2 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this importance structure. Are airports and ferries also part of this project? Tinlinkin 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'd include airports, since their importance for intra-region transportation is very little, but ferries are certainly closely related to the other modes, especially historically. Most of the crosstown streetcar lines in lower Manhattan had both terminals at ferries. --NE2 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call air travel "public transportation" anyway. =) I would not include bridges and automobile-related transport. Otherwise, it's a good idea. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bridges that carried rail should be fine though, like all the Manhattan-Brooklyn bridges except the Triborough. There are also rail-only bridges, like the Hell Gate Bridge. --NE2 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but I don't think that we should really have "official" scope over those articles, since their rail aspects are secondary (except for rail-only ones). This certainly doesn't mean that we can't improve them! Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That was already part of the template, but had just not been used before. --NE2 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Does anyone know if there's a book that covers the history of the Manhattan streetcar lines from construction to abandonment, including details of which company built exactly which trackage?
For a much more specific question, the 1899 map shows that the main line of the Metropolitan Crosstown Railway ran to the (West) 14th Street Ferry. I can see the trackage along 13th, Greenwich, and Waverley, and it used trackage rights over the Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad on McDougal, but I have no idea how it went from McDougal to Spring, where it continued east. --NE2 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost exclusively a subway guy in my experience, but I'll keep an eye out. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa... I actually found the answer. "The Metropolitan Cross-Town Railway Company, which was incorporated for the purpose of constructing and operating a line of surface road from Grand-Street Ferry through East-street, Delancey-slip, the Bowery, Springstreet, South Fifth-avenue, Fourth and Masdougal streets, Waverley-plane, Bank-street,..." --NE2 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhattan streetcars 

message: Recently the article 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) was edited include a mention of Wesley Autrey, who on January 2, 2006, saved an epileptic who had fallen onto the tracks there. I'm not questioning whether Autrey's actions are worthy of mention, but I'm not entirely sure that this event is notable enough to be included here. Will it still be notable in the next six months, or the next year? Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if the article on the person exists, it makes sense to mention him there. I'm not sure if he himself (or the event) is notable, but if anything I'd guess that if it's borderline it would be merged to the station article. --NE2 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info should stay. The guy is a legend. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then why do only two articles link to his page (not counting talk pages and such)? Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever links to an article does not assert the article's notability, only the subject itself. Since he has appeared on several news and talk outlets, I would think he is notable. What other articles would he be relevant in? Tinlinkin 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  137th Street and Wesley Autrey 

message: BWCNY recently changed the headers on list of bus routes in the Bronx and the other similar pages from "from"/"to" to "terminal A"/"terminal B". I reverted, since to me "terminal A" implies some sort of official designation by the MTA of that terminal as "A". However, the "from"/"to" could be misleading, implying it is a one-way trip. What do you think? --NE2 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From/To looks misleading. I'd rather Terminal "A" and "B". And no, it's not used by the MTA. In fact they have no nomenclature for bus terminals. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terminal A" implies that the terminal is designated "A" by the MTA. How about a double-width column saying just "Terminals"? --NE2 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of the double-width column. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table headers in bus lists 

message: I made template:WPNYPT for talk pages of non-rail NYPT articles. --NE2 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Move the main article to Buses in New York City. The existing article already descrives operations of NYCT, MaBSTOA and MTA Bus. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MTA combines NYCTA buses and MaBSTOA buses, but separates MTA Bus. I'm not sure if we should do this, but right now that's how the article is. If we expand the scope, we should probably still only cover MTA buses, since the private operators don't have the same behind-the-scenes details that the article should cover (funding etc). --NE2 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I:t should be called New York City Bus, but if we want to include private bus routes, put it in the bus list for the appropriate borough. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better idea

message: If someone is up to it, can you take a look at Subway Challenge and try to improve it? Thanks. Tinlinkin 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be up for it, but I'll do it later on sometime. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs references more than anything, right now. You can clean it up all you want, but the whole thing looks like a large amount of original research. I'd advise finding some sources before doing any article editing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway challenge 

message: Can someone find a reliable source about the B110 bus listed on list of bus routes in Brooklyn? It's not on the MTA's site, and I can't find any such sources for the number, only for the fact that they operate. --NE2 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not listed on the MTA bus site, because it is not a MTA operation. It is run by Private Transportation (the actual name of the company) and is used mostly by the jewish community, although it is open to all. I think the same company also runs the CitySights buses. You can search (or ask) someone on SubChat's BusChat board. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try running a google search, but I've never hard of that bus route before. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing, the B110 sometimes uses local streets between Borough Park and Williamsburg, to avoid BQE traffic. They use Vanderbilt and Park Avenues (<rant>I should know, they pass me everyday while I wait for the B69, which never comes and...</rant>)
I found a source for the number:  --NE2 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B110 bus? 

message: I lived at the B110 bus stop, once. (Arril 1999 till NOvember 2000)I guess it is numbered so, because it share 49th/50th streets as well as many stops with B11. So I guess it renotes a version of B11 with a 0 extension. HOwever, it is entirely different form B11.
*Before 1996 the vehicles were fishbowls
*in 1996 Flxibles were introduced
*In 2001 They started to use Orion I buses.
I dont know what do they use now. FLxibles are seen on other Jewish Routes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GK tramrunner (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw route number B110, first time in May 1998 

message: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1841 to 1902 has been scanned and placed online:  --NE2 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wrote Hudson Avenue Line from that. --NE2 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice source for Brooklyn history 

message: I no longer think it is suitable to classify stations that have the New York City Subway prefix as complexes due to naming issues. I believe that we should now classify stations as either transfer-points or shared. See below:
* Stations that have transfer availability should be called transfer-points, as long as the transfer whollies within fare control via a passageway (stations like 168th Street, Times Square, and Grand Central)
* Stations that have across-the-platform or level-to-level transfers should be called shared subway stations (stations like Seventh Avenue, Manhattan, Queensboro Plaza, and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, 50th Street, Manhattan, and Jamaica Center)
Appropriate category names would be:
Category:New York City Subway transfer-points and Category:Shared New York City Subway stations Any thoughts on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A category that points out transfer stations seems to be overcategorization to me. And why introduce a foreign-sounding terminology? Tinlinkin 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station complexes 

message: I've made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects of how the bus links could redirect to the line articles; there are only two with streetcar origins that don't have a clear target (and with the B23, those two short lines were once planned to connect, so they could logically be covered in one article). The new bus routes from B1 to B20 (and B31, formerly a branch of the B3, and B82, once the B5) were all introduced early by the BMT, and could easily be in one combined article detailing the BMT's early bus routes. That leaves only the B77, B83, B100, B103, and B110, which could redirect to the master list. --NE2 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus links, again 

message: Should passenger equipment be mid or low importance? --NE2 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with mid. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, mid. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance, again 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points --NE2 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be nice as possible about this. We all said no. You went ahead anyways. That is not consensus. That is "do what I want"-ism. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You could have made a list in your userspace that would have done the same thing. --NE2 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I can say for myself and Larry V that we were not "misled." We both could see that you want a category for subway stations that allow transfers between multiple lines. We couldn't see the point of creating a subcategory of these stations. (That means we said "no.") I said (in some other words) that your original categories as proposed above would be esoteric, meaning understood or designed for someone within a limited circle of users. Each station article mentions how connections are available; why should a category with a narrow intersection and/or overlapping amongst the same entity be created? Tinlinkin 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You could have (and still can) do it with a list. --NE2 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unnecessary. Point blank. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with having a category for different types of stations. I don't know what a list can offer instead a category, IMO. Then again, I don't object to it...it might be better that way.... --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We would only have to do it when the MTA builds a new connection, which is presumably rare. --NE2 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So when they finish we edit the list to say so. We'd have to add the page to the category anyway. --NE2 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, cool, that's fine with me. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's cool, but I'm going to create a list intead of a category, which is what NE2 said. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was going to oppose the categorization anyway, since I felt it was unnecessary. I just wanted you to lay out what you wanted to do and what your intended purpose was. On that note, you never answered my question and dictated the point of the category. By extension, is this list really necessary or useful at all? I can easily imagine this list being placed on WP:AFD and being deleted as cruft. What will be the real usefulness of the article? And no, making the list for the purpose of having a list is not legitimate. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what should we do then? There are different types of stations that are connected, and they deserve having some sort of list. What should we do? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they deserve a list? You saw the opinions of the editors who discussed the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points. Many dismissed the category as esoteric, not useful, etc. I agree with them. Do you have a good reason to make this list? Who will the list be useful to? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful to have a list of all stations that allow transfer between two lines. List of New York City Subway inter-division transfers could be expanded to cover them. --NE2 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:New York City Subway transfer-points]] is listed for deletion 

message: Okay, back to sources. Well, I've got some suggestions. The nycsubway.org and Station Reporter sites are probably the best sorces for our info (check every page, most of it has these two sites as sources). The MTA works, too, because they have address and accessibility info too, but let's not get too specific. So anyway, what our main problem is original research. See information for the 5 service? They say some trains go to Gun Hill Road and run express. Some people may have seen this, but not everyone lives in New York, so we have to make sure this stays correct. And let's not forget those darn Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes, where vandals were getting misunderstood information from SubChat, formerly SubTalk, and created chaos all over the namespace. The bottom line is: Not everyone lives in New York, so they don't know as much as we do, but with a little help from online, everything will be a-okay. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our sources 

message: In  ("MTA Capital Program Information") of the MTA-Wide February Financial Plan for 2004–2007, there are references to both "74 St–Roosevelt Av" and "Roosevelt Av–74 St". So there's a reference for a combined name for the complex. I'd prefer "Roosevelt Avenue–74th Street", because the "Roosevelt Avenue" name is somewhat more important than "74th Street" (for instance, station signs to the complex usually say "Roosevelt Avenue Subway Station"). Larry V (talk | e-mail) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also some construction companies and MTA documents in . --NE2 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue 

message: …and others like it are not being used, and I think we came to a conclusion earlier that they don't fit into the project very well. So can I go ahead and delete them? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If User:Rbb l181 agrees, he can just speedy them with db-author instead. If that happens, then you can have the right-of-way to delete them. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:NYSubway2]] 

message: Thanks to Slambo, we now have :Category:Unreferenced New York City public transportation articles, :Category:New York City public transportation articles needing maps, and :Category:New York City public transportation articles needing images. (The latter two are currently being populated at :Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing maps and :Category:New York City public transportation project articles needing images; I'd fix it but template:TWP has been protected.) --NE2 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New maintenance categories 

message: Does anyone here have access to the full text in the New York Times archive (through your school or something)? --NE2 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I'm looking for the list of lines from either  or  and one of ,  or  (which appear to have lists of Fifth Avenue Coach Company bus routes). Thank you muchly. --NE2 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to pay to get into the archives. Try asking someone on the reference desk. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe students at some institutions get access for free. --NE2 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times archive 

message: I created list of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn and have started writing about the bus routes in Brooklyn that did not replace streetcars. This means that there will be a target for every redirect on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects. I propose that we temporarily redirect the ones with no target yet to the main borough list, and use a template like Template:R with possibilities that will categorize these redirects into a special category, so we can more easily maintain the ones that redirect to lists. Template:NYC simplebus just needs to be changed to link to the redirect then. --NE2 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the redirects and changed the template; please report any red links here. --NE2 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus links: final decision? 

message: Please comment on whether we should duplicate the entries for routes that enter more than one borough on multiple tables. --NE2 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Talk:List of bus routes in Brooklyn for whether the B110 should be included. --NE2 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone provide outside input? The situation is beginning to degrade. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They are all in the lists, and the lists provide details for the ones with that borough's prefix. Are you willing to watch these articles and copy over all changes people make to listings of multi-borough routes? --NE2 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List of bus routes in the Bronx]] 

message: I just got Steel Rails to the Sunrise through interlibrary loan, and it's due back on February 1. So I'm going to be working on improving Long Island Rail Road, hopefully to featured status, this coming week-and-a-half. --NE2 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIRR 

message: Should we have  subst'ed on the :Category:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation templates? The reason why I think so is that since  is making this template obsolete, it should be substituted for line templates only, while articles that contain this template merged into the universal template, . What we also should do is have  converted to link to New York City Subway. Any suggestions on this? --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just manually replaced the links on article namespace, from  to . --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, why go through the trouble? It's not hurting anything. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't link to anything, and all links have been carried over to . Besides,  has made all the other service templates redundant, and no longer needed.  is a universal template that is also designed to replace . If possible, I hope that we can finalize the template cleanup process before mid-February. The cat template page needs work anyway. So I'll do a TfD for  and see how that goes. If that works, then I'll have the other service templates deleted, too. If possible, I'll also create a new template, called  to link to Unused New York City Subway service labels.  --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Tl|NYCS time}} 

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. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:NYCS 1 }} 

message: Given the recent expansion of various bus affairs, I would like to put foward one suggestion: adding notes about service hours. Or at the least, noting which routes have overnight service. If we can go into having notes about history and routings, surely we can include service hours. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with Pacific Coast Highway, it's a useful source of information to improve the articles. Not all bus routes runs 24 hours/7 days a week (and if you wanna add frequently of service in the articles), it should be detailed Hours of Operation or simply stated  in general statement like "No Sunday service" in the Note section.BWCNY 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The detailed service hours I've seen in some lists ("5:35 AM - 11:54 PM") are just not useful or encyclopedic. More general comments such as "weekday only" should be fine, as well as which routes run 24 hours or not (which is more frequent?) --NE2 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree because most public transportation articles in Wikipedia detailed/listed hours of operation. I don't think is not useful info but it's additional notation to the route's service hours.BWCNY 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So noting overnight service and certain days/"rush hours only" is okay? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so; that type of thing is typically covered by the media when it changes, like . --NE2 02:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus routes 

message: I propose that we include bus connections at rail stations if the literature published by either the rail company or the bus company shows a connection. This eliminates original research "oh, you can walk four blocks to this bus, but five blocks is too much" while inculding any transfers deemed useful by either company. Yea or nay? --NE2 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong opinion. I would prefer to go with published literature: routes are listed and delineated, although some bus route connections can be confirmed with a map. The Q60, for example, can connect to the Forest Hills LIRR station, but I guess the LIRR doesn't list that because the Q60 runs parallel to the rail line. The LIRR does say the 71st-Continental subway station is a connection to the LIRR station, even though it is also a block away and parallel. A concern I would raise is if bus (or other) connections should always be in a separate section in each article. Tinlinkin 09:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should use our judgment on what looks best: if it's just one route, we can easily use a phrase "the CruftBus #7 stops outside the station", while if there are a number of connections if should be fine to use a bulleted list and maybe a section. --NE2 09:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is an issue with how the MTA lists connections of that nature. If a bus runs parallel to a subway line, for instance, they will usually list only the "end points". Perfect example: The Q32 runs underneath the IRT Flushing Line for a good portion of its route. The first connection point after it crosses the Queensboro Bridge is at Queensboro Plaza station, and the last connection point before it turns north off of Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights is 82nd Street–Jackson Heights station; however, it does make connections at every Flushing Line station in between. Note that the 's line map only lists the Q32 at those two "end" stations. This holds true for subway/bus connections, usually; I'm not sure about the commuter rail side. So (for subway/bus at least) what we should do is only list connections that are published, with the exception of parallel routes (which are usually not mentioned), which can be included for each station along the shared route. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know though that the parallel route makes a "convenient" stop? Maybe you have to walk several blocks along the route to reach the next stop. And how close to parallel is "close enough"? Does the bus route have to be on the same street? Can it be half a block away? A full block away? There's also an issue with "reciprocal" links on pages like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn - in theory, all the links should be two-way, but I don't think it's a good idea to list 10 IND Eighth Avenue Line stations on the M10 entry (which would be at Eighth Avenue Line). Though I guess you could just say "it parallels the IND Eighth Avenue Line between 42nd Street and 116th Street, stopping at every station" - and you'd need a reference for that. --NE2 09:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm gonna second that. You have kinda been on citation overkill over the past few days. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for bus connections 

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road/archive1. Thank you. --NE2 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for LIRR 

message: I created , a userbox template. Feel free to add it to your userpages. Make any changes as you see fit. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Tl|User WP:NYCPT}} 

message: I think this user needs to be blocked indefinetly. All his editings are being reverted because they are vandalism, unsourced, or unnecessary. The Legendary Ranger 12:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that dude's a sockpuppet of User:DCarltonsm@msn.com. If so, he should be blocked indefinitely, and immediately. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. His style of "editing," as well as his blatantly obvious account name, makes it clear-cut. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism again 

message: Special:Contributions/66.65.48.106 --NE2 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has got to be the biggest troll I've ever seen. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% PCH. Vandalism is rising. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is anyone here? --NE2 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now back to User:209.247.5.250. --NE2 00:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The main difference is that he adds blantant crap. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I to determine that? Other than the bad grammar and formatting that he uses (which I've also seen from "good guys" like BWCNY), there's nothing that distinguishes his additions from the other information, since no sources are provided for me to verify with. --NE2 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not on that, he is a sockpuppet. And sockpuppetry is a bannable offense. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 03:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCarltonsm again 

message: ...has been deleted. For the rest of templates that my bot fixed i will befixing some by hand, then have them deleted all at once. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it looks like Template:NYCS will be the new home of Template:NYCS service, you might want to hold off until that's completed. --NE2 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but how will this affect the deletion of the templates? I'm a bit confused.... --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're opposed to using redirects, so you'd want to use  once the change is made. But of course you shouldn't change the existing ones. --NE2 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if you're going to replace all  templates, you might as well wait a couple of days; then you can replace them with . There's no rush. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, okay. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:NYCS 1... 

message: An interesting read:
Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link.  The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.
Most especially, there should never be a need to replace redirect with redirect.
Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers.  Because editing a page is seemingly thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything.  It's inadvisable to worry about performance.
One area where it is preferable to fix redirected links is in series templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g.  on George W. Bush). In this case, where the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), that link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
From Wikipedia:Redirect. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would do is get rid of redirects when you are rewriting redirects and fix them to direct links. Other than that, I usually don't, although I have in the past, edit an article to fix a redirect. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting redirect info 

message: * it seems to me that this user: IP: 24.185.130.106 (by looking at the history page), copying the R160A and R160B articles into one page...Should it be deleted? BWCNY 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[R160]] copy page 

message: I think the NYCS template would look really nice with each line's symbol linked to the article, in place of just the letter or number.  For example, clicking on an E or V train's symbol would take you to the respective article.  I used the Click template to create the bullets for the talk page, but a separate template could be created if used.  Note: I simply posted the code only because the template will not work here on the talk page.  If you'd like to try it for yourself, paste the code into the Sandbox.   
   —Crashintome4196 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already rejected this; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 4#Bullets linking to subway service articles. --NE2 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYCS symbol images linked to articles 

message: Should we placed this tag,  protected template or  semi-protected template on the R68 page... It's looks like this guy is really obsessed on that R68 car. Sta2GUYZ 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[R68]] page, vandeling again 

message: While I was going around the rolling stock, I found that some articles had a table for car specifications and others didn't. I used a table someone else had and improved it a little. Perhaps we could use this as a standard of sorts:
Example from R160A:
===Specifications===
Car Builder                           	Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil          	Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil
Car Body                              	Pure stainless steel                                         	Pure stainless steel
Unit Numbers                          	4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order)	4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order)
Fleet size                            	400 cars                                                     	400 cars
Car dimensions                        	Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m)                       	Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m)
                                      	Width: 10 feet (3.048 m)                                     	Width: 10 feet (3.048 m)
                                      	Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m)                        	Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m)
Track Gauge                           	4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m)                               	4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m)
Maximum Operating Speed               	~65 MPH                                                      	~65 MPH
Propulsion System                     	Alstom Onix AC Traction                                      	Alstom Onix AC Traction
Seating capacity                      	Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44                     	Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44
Total capacity (seating plus standing)	Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132                   	Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132
Cost per new car                      	USD$1,319,589                                                	USD$1,319,589
== Specifications ==

Car Builder                           	                                                   	
Car Body                              	                                                   	
Unit Numbers                          	4 Car Set: #### and 5 Car Set: #### (Primary Order)	4 Car Set: #### and 5 Car Set: #### (Primary Order)
Fleet size                            	### cars                                           	### cars
Car dimensions                        	Length: feet, inches (meters)                      	Length: feet, inches (meters)
                                      	Width: feet, inches (meters)                       	Width: feet, inches (meters)
                                      	Height: feet, inches (meters)                      	Height: feet, inches (meters)
Track Gauge                           	feet, inches (meters)                              	feet, inches (meters)
Maximum Operating Speed               	## MPH                                             	## MPH
Propulsion System                     	                                                   	
Seating capacity                      	Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ##           	Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ##
Total capacity (seating plus standing)	Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ###         	Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ###
Cost per new car                      	USD$                                               	USD$

Place this on main page of this WP?   Herenthere (Talk) 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to make a template for it, so it can be changed if necessary. --NE2 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway rolling stock table 

message: Car Builder                           	Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil          	Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil
Car Body                              	Pure stainless steel                                         	Pure stainless steel
Unit Numbers                          	4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order)	4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order)
Fleet size                            	400 cars                                                     	400 cars
Car dimensions                        	Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m)                       	Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m)
                                      	Width: 10 feet (3.048 m)                                     	Width: 10 feet (3.048 m)
                                      	Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m)                        	Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m)
Track Gauge                           	4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m)                               	4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m)
Maximum Operating Speed               	~65 MPH                                                      	~65 MPH
Propulsion System                     	Alstom Onix AC Traction                                      	Alstom Onix AC Traction
Seating capacity                      	Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44                     	Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44
Total capacity (seating plus standing)	Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132                   	Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132
Cost per new car                      	USD$1,319,589                                                	USD$1,319,589
== Specifications ==

Car Builder                           	                                                   	
Car Body                              	                                                   	
Unit Numbers                          	4 Car Set: #### and 5 Car Set: #### (Primary Order)	4 Car Set: #### and 5 Car Set: #### (Primary Order)
Fleet size                            	### cars                                           	### cars
Car dimensions                        	Length: feet, inches (meters)                      	Length: feet, inches (meters)
                                      	Width: feet, inches (meters)                       	Width: feet, inches (meters)
                                      	Height: feet, inches (meters)                      	Height: feet, inches (meters)
Track Gauge                           	feet, inches (meters)                              	feet, inches (meters)
Maximum Operating Speed               	## MPH                                             	## MPH
Propulsion System                     	                                                   	
Seating capacity                      	Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ##           	Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ##
Total capacity (seating plus standing)	Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ###         	Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ###
Cost per new car                      	USD$                                               	USD$

Place this on main page of this WP?   Herenthere (Talk) 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to make a template for it, so it can be changed if necessary. --NE2 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications

message: I created an infobox for LIRR stations and added it to Douglaston. What do you think? --NE2 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, with a nice imitation of station signage.  Tinlinkin 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIRR infobox 

message: How should the following LIRR station articles be named?
*St. James (LIRR station) or Saint James (LIRR station)
*St. Albans (LIRR station) or Saint Albans (LIRR station)
I have no preference as I see both used interchangeably, but the abbreviated version seems to be in widespread use. Tinlinkin 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a slight preference for the abbreviated name, but nothing strong. --NE2 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we're going with "St." then? (Just to be clear, the articles are currently at St. Albans and Saint James.) Tinlinkin 10:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a formal move request because St. James (LIRR station) has a history (see Talk:Saint James (LIRR station) for the move). Tinlinkin 06:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. James and St. Albans 

message: (linked from ) --NE2 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting subway planning map from ca. 1970 

message: I'm going to sound like a nag now, but this should be dealt with. Service changes and General Orders happen every week. There are some that screw up service for a while. And there are some that go away on Monday never to return. So here's my proposal: If it is not a long term service change, and by long term, meaning something lasting for a period of three months or more, it's is not notable. I call this the three month rule. I'm also bringing this to attention because of the media attention recieved by the disruption of  trains because of the new switch installation.  Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The media tends to overhype certain short term service disruptions, and I don't know why we have to record those. The MTA also does a poor job (in my opinion, at least) in issuing press/news releases compared to other transportation systems, so those disruptions seem to be ordinary or non-notable in the MTA's eyes. But is there a reason why three months is "long term"? And are we recording station rehabilitations this way? Tinlinkin 10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service changes 

message: Hey, guys, I'm back from wikibreak. I'll be removing the notice from my user page soon but I may not be editing as much, so hopefully I'll be back editing to regular levels in no time. Anyway, I see that NE2 has created a brand new infobox for the LIRR. Great work, NE2! I myself created an infobox for the MNRR using the same format, except for the MNRR, I bolded and italicized (is that a real word?) the station name. If any changes should be needed to any of the infobox(es), here are the links:
* 
* 
Anyway, its great to be back, and I'll be here for any concerns whenever. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up? 

message: BMT 8 redirects to BMT Astoria Line and BMT 9 to IRT Flushing Line. Is this ideal behavior? --NE2 12:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two services redirect to lines 

message: On Talk:S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) is a proposed move of S – Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to Franklin Avenue Shuttle and S – 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to 42nd Street Shuttle. --NE2 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested moves 

message: I'm proposing to make separate articles - IND Division, IRT Division, and BMT Division - to discuss the current status of these and their history after 1940. The Independent Subway System, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation would cover the history before 1940, when the companies ceased to exist. --NE2 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about A Division (New York City Subway) and B Division (New York City Subway)? Since, they are kinda technically that now? Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MTA seems to be conflicted about that;  includes both "the NYCT subway system is composed of two groups of lines, the A Division and B Division" and "NYC Transit installed SONET nodes in the three subway divisions: IRT, BMT, and IND". --NE2 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still rather A and B. The older names are more anachronistic. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which one is correct? Is it possible that operations uses A/B and other areas like station maintenance use IND/IRT/BMT? We could put them at A/B and clearly state in the intro that A is also known as IRT and B is IND/BMT. --NE2 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It kinda seems redundant to me, but I like PCHs idea. They are better known by these divisions, even though the IRT, BMT and IND division monikers are still used for historical purposes. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: split old companies and current divisions? 

message: Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car) --NE2 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about edit war 

message: I don't understand how DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line) is on the BMT Broadway Line if Lawrence Street–MetroTech and Court Street are on the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. --NE2 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source that puts DeKalb on the Fourth Avenue Line:  --NE2 08:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Move it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming: DeKalb Avenue 

message: Congratulations to whoever was involved. I've nominated another one - Myrtle Avenue Line (surface) - for Good Article status. --NE2 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was one already. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transportation in New York City]] is a Good Article 

message: Unless someone is able to find reliable sources for the rosters of and routes served by the bus depots, I'm going to do what I did with Flatbush Depot and move the attributable information to Bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Advice requested. --NE2 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First of all, why are you creating a new article to attach to Flatbush Depot in Bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)?, there is New York City Transit buses; Why don't you add that? You are gonna create a massive article. I rather summarized all depots not the full story about a depot. Also revert Flatbush Depot edit back, unless you have good amount of reasons. I think removing rosters will be a go if there is concrete proof, the assigned routes should stay and put a citation tag to it.  BWCNY 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there will ever be a reliable source for the rosters. Wikipedia should only include material that can be attributed to a reliable source. --NE2 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus depots 

message: Syosset (LIRR station) is one of the articles posted for  and is shown on the Main Page. I didn't expect little old me could write an interesting article. If an interesting fact pops up from a new article in this group I'll nominate it, or better yet, you should nominate it. Tinlinkin 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Syosset (LIRR station)]] selected for Did you know 

message: I guess that since we have fixed all transclusions to link to the master template, NYCS, I guess now we can start nominating all the service-specific templates (the line templates will stay, as per a past discussion). Shall I go ahead and start the Tfds? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tfds (continued) 

message: Does anyone object if I make a second "simplified" set of these templates, where the time information isn't included? For instance, then you can link to the services in Ocean Hill, Brooklyn using the templates, but without the unnecessary time data. Also, are there any suggestions for naming? Would it even be best to use the current naming for the simplified ones, and move the current ones to something like Template:NYCS Lexington local time? Probably all the uses that need the time are in the infoboxes, and there the code can be changed to call the time templates. --NE2 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it could be done with ParserFunctions, so  gives no time but  gives the times. --NE2 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tested it on Template:NYCS Lexington. You can see how the time is displayed at Grand Central–42nd Street (New York City Subway)#IRT Lexington Avenue Line platforms but not at Broadway (New York City)#Public transit. --NE2 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need for that. Just type in the service-specific templates. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified line templates? 

message: I'm going to change redirects like Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) to point to Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway)#BMT Fourth Avenue Line rather than Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street (New York City Subway). But some articles include "platforms" in the section title; should we standardize them with or without the word? --NE2 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific platforms are the best target for those station redirects. Standardizing the section names for consistency is preferable (which standard, I have no strong opinion). I am unsure about the individual infoboxes, though. I've never been a fan of what I see as infobox clutter. Tinlinkin 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is whether we should title the section "BMT Fourth Avenue Line" or "BMT Fourth Avenue Line platforms". --NE2 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Platforms" seems to provide the most clarity to me. (I've settled on a standard, after all.) Tinlinkin 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding on "platforms"  is probably OK. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming for sections of transfer station articles: include "platforms" or not? 

message: I live in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn.
My favourite subway cars are R40, R40M and R42.
I'd wish for an incomming stock (next order after R160ies) to resemble R40ies, and R42s.
*Our subway must be clean and convenient.
*PS: Looking for a similar WIKI-group in Port Authority Trans-Hudson
GK tramrunner 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PATH is part of the scope of this project, even if it is pretty much forgotten when one thinks about subways in NYC. --NE2 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am glad to join you! 

message: A lot of the service history info was removed for copyright issues. I want that information to be put back in the article, but written in our own words. I will be adding some info of my own, but I can't do it alone. I need your help. Please find whatever information you can about each individual subway line's service history and add it on the article. Thank You. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Legendary Ranger. But NE2 removed them without providing an adequate reason. He could have tried to fix them but he didn't. They have to be put back, though. They are really vital to the service article and about its history. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because they were copyright violations, not "without providing an adequate reason". Please stop lying. --NE2 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No one's lying here. But you removed the information, which is really important. Did you say in your edit summary that the text was copyrighted or whatever? I don't think so. And on top of that, you're showing borderline symptoms of insubordination and consensus breaching, once again. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text is copyrighted by default. Please read up on copyrights. --NE2 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever there is a copyright violation, i.e. something taken word-for-word from any source, the copyrighted text in Wikipedia should be removed and it is the burden of the regular editors to fix it.  The text is always recorded in public history (unless the article is deleted), so it's not really lost and you can always retrieve it. Just write in your own words. It takes a bit of work, but it will be a great reward. The source which was used may even be used as a citation. Tinlinkin 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service History Edits 

message: thumb|200px|R40ies are roomy for cheerful friends
As of me, they are the part of my everyday American Life.
Today, it is 15 years as I live in USA. My first two appartmens (since April 1992) were in along the West End Line. That time, it was served by a route B, which used R40ies, until April 1997. R68s entered B line R40ies went on Q.
===Now I live in Sheepshead Bay, where now Q and B lines runs.===
*In summer 2001, when I already lived in SHeepshead Bay Manhattan Bridge Repairs started. Subway Route B terminated in Manhattan, being replaced my route W in Brooklyn. Brighton line was served by Q local and Q express routes. R40ies are again close to me, yet in another part of Brooklyn.
*I vas very gald that in February 2004, after the Manhattan Bridge repairs route B  returned in Brooklyn, and ran over the Brighton Express line. So, B trains are again R40ies! IN addition to nearnes of my appartment R40ies retained back a "B" letter. History Returns to us and repeats itself.
===R40ies will be gone soon===
being replaced by R160ies. Butafter the complete arrival of R160ies there will be new fleet ordered. So: make the new fleet look like R40ies!!!!!
*R40 Forever!
GK tramrunner 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The R40 slants are the most likely cars to be replaced anyway, as well as a few R32s, all R38s, R40 slants, and some R42s. The R44s will be replaced as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never let R40ies to be gone! 

message: being replaced by R160ies. Butafter the complete arrival of R160ies there will be new fleet ordered. So: make the new fleet look like R40ies!!!!!
*R40 Forever!
GK tramrunner 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The R40 slants are the most likely cars to be replaced anyway, as well as a few R32s, all R38s, R40 slants, and some R42s. The R44s will be replaced as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: R40ies will be gone soon

message: I've noticed that some of the service links are no longer in bold. Is there a reason why they can't be bold? Or why they shouldnt? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aask NE2, PCH. He unbolded Template:NYCS. See his talk page for a reason why they should be bold. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To bold or not to bold? 

message: From some sources I've read that they will be replaced by newer cars, which will look the the R143/R160 NYC Subway standard.
*So all rolling stock in New York City will be standradrized
PATH cars are favourite to me and to many railways. As of me, they get along with the
*artistic setting of Greenwich VIllage
*business setting of Jersey City Waterfront
*Railfan's paradize setting of tracks leading to Newark, NJ.
Never let them go. In case they will need to be gone, retain some museum copies for:
*NYC Transit Museum
*Some more American Museum
*Museums in Europe and around the world!!!
PATH cars reserve respect, as R40ies. I hope, they will not retire soon!
GK tramrunner 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  will the current [[Port Authority Trans-Hudson|PATH]] trains, follow R40ies? 

message: I have begun a discussion at Template talk:NYCS. --NE2 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about [[template:NYCS]] and overlinking 

message: I am proposing the deletion of , a navigation template for the handicapped accessibility of the NYC transit systems at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 23#Template:NYC acc navbox. Tinlinkin 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of NYC transit accessibility template 

message: I would like to merge New York City Subway accessibility into List of New York City Subway stations. The merge tag has appeared for a couple days now. But as I was looking at the WP:NYCPT home page again, I noticed the blurb about accessibility. This propmpted me to post a message here for broader discussion, just to be sure of consensus.
Along with the merge, I would like to make List of New York City Subway stations into a sortable table. The table will have the following columns: "Station", , "Line(s)", and "Service(s)". It would also be a good opportunity to demonstrate all the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines. I don't think the services will be too much. I'd like to know if the time periods should be included, along with any other concerns to this conversion. I hope to start within a few days. Tinlinkin 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think time periods are necessary (but a notes column should mention the four stations that are not open 24/7). It's easy enough to change anyway by adding or removing |time=1. --NE2 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility and List of stations 

message: Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in New York City', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single 'Streets and Squares' category. I've also let the Wikiproject New York know. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. --Keefer4 | Talk 01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Merging/Deletion of [[:Category:Streets in New York City]]