User talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 2012

Station structure

Hi. Concurrently with our discussions on station layouts and on infobox programming, I would like to ask you about station structures. It's the same question that I tried to ask here and here.

All underground stations have their Structure parameter in infoboxes filled in with one value: Underground. This solution isn't correct, because the word underground only means that a station is below the ground. These stations have different structures, and I want to reflect this fact.

In Russia, where I lived, it's common to classify underground stations approximately this way:

I see some on these types in the NYCS too:

However, I couldn't find the full list of NYCS stations along with their types. Could you provide me with it? Vcohen (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No such list of station types exists. Most are shallow column stations, with fewer deep column stations, and fewest single-vault stations. I can't think of any pylon stations. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I see what you say. Anyway, how can I find out which stations are (structurally) deep? Vcohen (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, could you help me here? Vcohen (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how you can find out which are structurally deep other than visiting each one. Of course, that would be WP:OR which we can't use. Off the top of my head, those that are structurally deep are near river crossings as well as in upper Manhattan on the west side. Those come to mind, and surely there are some New York Times articles about those stations being built. The stations that are currently under construction would be the easiest to source, and they are all similar designs. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
When we say that station X has N tracks and M platforms (and don't refer to any source), it isn't considered WP:OR. I hope there exist obvious signs that allow us to say that station X belongs to type Y. I have only two problems.
My first problem is that the classification used in the USA may differ from the one I've described. For instance, this is a deep station, no doubt, as it has a rounded ceiling. However, this is a station below it, and it must be deep too, but it has no any sign of a deep station that I know.
My second problem is that I cannot come from Israel and visit each station. Vcohen (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, I have the same problem of not being in NYC.
About your question on the Lexington Avenue / 59th Street complex... There is a cut-away drawing somewhere (that I will try to find) that shows the structure from street level down. The Lex local is a standard Dual Contracts shallow column station and the BMT station is a deep column station. The Lex express level was built in the 1950s around the existing express tracks, so that would make it a deep column station. It is at a lower level from the BMT station. So the drawing shows the Lex local closest to the surface, then the BMT station at a right angle to that at a lower level, and finally the Lex express deeper still. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's fine, but this lower level has neither rounded ceiling nor rounded walls. This is the ceiling above the tracks, it's flat too. Maybe there are some structural features that cause the station not to collapse, but I totally cannot classify it. Have you any solution? Vcohen (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion over at WT:NYCPT has gone stale, I've been bold and added the switch to Infobox NYCS for structure type. I've checked and fixed all of the above-ground stations too. My suggestion of a solution for you is to use the WP:BRD process. Make a bold edit and see if someone reverts.

For 59th Street lower level, I would classify it as a deep column station because of the simple fact that it is not close to the surface. Additionally, it was built under an existing station. I think the reason that any column station doesn't collapse (deep or shallow) is the sheer number of columns, and their close spacing that distributes the weight above. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. As of now, I still have no data to proceed with. IMHO, if we want to find somebody that knows the answer we have to ask explicitly. I will ask this question on the project talk page. The WP:BRD process won't yield the desired result. Somebody will revert my changes as unsourced, and he will be right.
What for 59th street, I see two alternatives, and I want to know which of them is correct. The first one is that this station has something that we don't see in the photos. Before the lower level was built, the tracks were in a tunnel. When they were building the level, they could use a part of the tunnel construction. For example, the flat ceiling that we have seen may be a false ceiling hiding the real rounded ceiling of the tunnel. In this case the structure of the lower level is "deep column". The second alternative is that both levels have the same structure that works at any depth. In this case my "Russian" classification is not suitable here and we have to find another classification that does reflect the reality. Vcohen (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

En dashes

I reverted your reversion of the move of Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). I hadn't totally sorted out the MOS vote on this from last summer, but it appears that it was decided that a space was no longer necessary around an en dash between elements that had spaces themselves, unless those spaced elements were the ends of a range (i.e., dates). You'll see that the current language at MOS:ENDASH reflects this.

Your move-log message referred to the NYCPT' project's naming convention. This says nothing about spacing and cannot trump policy (i.e., the MOS, to which it even refers) without a specific, explicit exception in policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple A5x

Hi, I saw you made a redirect from Apple A5X to Apple A5. I think that Apple A5x (lowercase x) should also be a redirect to Apple A5, what do you think? --KDesk (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually working on that right now. Moving sources over... Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3

Thanks for that; I was unawares. 98.82.0.90 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

&

Just curious - what is the advantage of "&" over "&" ? I have seen many cases on many websites where the result is &amp being what is actually displayed.--JimWae (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A web browser's renderer tries to interpret "&" as HTML. "&" is an HTML escape sequence that displays "&" in plain text and tells the renderer not think of it as HTML. If the semi-colon is forgotten, then it will display incorrectly. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
But & seems to work just fine on wikipedia in every browser I've ever used - and is included in the first 127 ASCII characters. The advantage seems to be within urls. --JimWae (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Even though most browsers can stumble over a bare & and display it properly, it's still bad form and bad HTML code. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
But remember, you're writing wikitext, not HTML! The Mediawiki software will automatically convert a bare & to the proper & when it sends it to your browser. You only need to actually write & when you are writing some discussion or documentation about, say,   and want it to appear like that instead of actually rendering as a non-breaking space. Hgrosser (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being complained about

Just a courtesy note that the IP editor who was commenting here has now taken the "issue" to Tide rolls user page. QU TalkQu 21:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/March&oldid=1051791670"