Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Bus connections in station articles

What's the policy about showing connecting buses in station articles? I know we used to do so, but that seems to have fallen out of vogue. Taz82189 (talk · contribs) has been adding bus information to a bunch of Bronx station articles. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My belief is that every active station should have bus connection info in the infobox. I removed the separate connections sections for all but the major transit centers, as it's unnecessary. Some of Taz82189's edits will need to be reverted, but I'll let this discussion go for a few days first. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, when I said "articles" I was only referring to articles' body text. Sorry if that was misleading. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Did anybody tell Taz82189 how this is supposed to work? ----DanTD (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think infoboxes should be used for details. Show the connecting agency or company in the infobox, but detail the routes in the body text of the article. If there is only one route that would be OK, but sometimes that parameter is abused and overstuffed with long lists. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted all of Taz82189 (talk · contribs)'s edits. Bus connection information on the articles are completely unneeded as they are already in the infoboxes. Also, the information on the station articles should only be about the station themselves, not the neighborhoods they serve or what transfers are available. If Taz82189 (talk · contribs) tries to add this information again, please block him. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, infoboxes shouldn't contain info not elsewhere in the article. (See WP:INFOBOX) Secondly, the infobox could easily become too long for stations with many connections. Thirdly, what transfers are available is important information about the stations; it describes the stations usage and usefulness. Finally, there's absolutely no need to block anyone making good faith edits, especially if no one has told him about this conversation; blocking an editor for something he's completely unaware of is the height of biteyness. Take a chill, and start a proper discussion. oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't think detailed bus connection information is appropriate at all, but blocking Taz is certainly not an option at this point. Their edits have not been vandalism, or disruptive in any way. In fact, someone should probably drop a note about this on their user talk. Larry V (talk | email) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with current action. No blocking is necessary at this point. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I really didnt know i was doing anything wrong to be honest, i figured i was providing useful and helpful information to views of this post, i would find it helpful if i were lookin at this as many users do look to wikipedia as a helpful tool to figure out where things are located, and what things are. Again i didnt mean anything by posting such what i believed enhancements to the topic. Taz82189 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe most people understand that you were making good faith edits. Also, you are not alone in thinking that such edits would be/are worthwhile. 96.232.68.242 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Peak Hour Trains With Terminal Changes

Good afternoon. I would like to obtain everyone's feedback about including information about peak hour trains that run a shortened run. For example, F trains that start or end at Kings Highway instead of Coney Island, J/Z trains that start or end at Broadway Junction, or the 1 train from 137th Street/City College instead of 242th Street. I believe that these constitute important information that should be included in the wikiarticles. First of all, theses shortenings are documented in the MTA's own timetables. Therefore, they are official and verifiable facts. Also, they are definitely significant and notable because many of these cases involve multiple trains - for example, the F train example involves every second weekday peak AM train for approximately 3 hours every weekday morning. Also, many of these changes involve very large sections of the line, not just a handful of stations deleted. For example, the 1 train at 137th Street does not serve 12 stations, nearly one third of the line's 38 stations, and the J/Z train shortenings involve truncating in both ways at Broadway Junction - some trains only run from Jamaica Center to Broadway Junction, and some only run from Broadway Junction to Broad Street. The trains that run from Jamaica Center to Broadway Junction do not serve the majority of that line's stations, so they are certainly significant. I find it difficult to argue that these changes are not significant. Also, peak hour route extensions (such as the B train to the Bronx, the 5 train to Dyre Avenue, and so forth) are included in the wikiarticles. So, why not peak hour shortenings? They are certainly important to the many riders who are affected, and equally well documented in the timetables.

Some people have suggested that there is a wikipedia policy for using the MTA service guide alone. I am not certain if that is the case. Wikipedia does use the MTA service guide for its articles on the NYC subway, shown especially on this page - Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Services and lines. However, I cannot find any statement or even talk that suggests that the MTA service guide is the sole or the major source for wikiarticles on NYC subway lines. Instead, the service guide appears to be used as a outline/framework and as a template (such as for naming stations and lines). It does not appear to be used for details or writing complete articles (for which many other sources are used). In any case, I do find it hard to believe that wikipedia would choose to use only one source on this topic because wikipedia uses multiple verified, mainstream sources on many other topics. Indeed, an encyclopedia is always a compilation of multiple sources. Furthermore, these peak hour changes we are discussing are sourced from the official MTA timetables - the very same MTA that publishes the MTA service guide. Therefore, I do not see why these MTA timetables would be any less of a source than the service guide. This is especially true because the MTA has never intended the service guide to be used alone - it is used with the map or timetables. As someone else has pointed out, it even used to included as part of the map until very recently.

In any case, I welcome constructive feedback and comments. Please have a very good day. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.193.129 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You make good points, and I see no reason why the service variations you describe should not be noted in the appropriate places. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I too fully agree, It is best to rely on multiple sources, and there really is no better published source than the timetables themselves.67.247.23.150 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What concerns me is that by adding those short-turn information, you are treating the timetables like they are always accurate and they are not. Just because the timetable says a train is scheduled to terminate at a certain station does not mean it always will. Also, the timetables do not show every station on the line, so how do you know trains are not actually terminating at one of the in-between stations, like the N. The timetable only shows Kings Highway and Coney Island - Stillwell Avenue and yet, someone claims 86th Street is the rush-hour terminal and I do not see a source for that. The rush hour extensions of the 5, A, and B trains are not the same as the short-turn runs being that they are shown on the official subway map while these short-turn terminals are not (look at the route for the 1 and F trains and you will see that every station it serves has a bold letter or number, implying that the trains serve them at all times). What I am trying to say is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a service guide or train schedule. People use maps and timetables, not Wikipedia, to know where they need to go. Please read this talk page to try and get what I am trying to say. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The timetables ARE always accurate. Moreso than any other source. The details come from the developer resources, which are based off of the same internal timetables as the public timetables. There is no reason not to place such information here. An encyclopedia is useless if we pull out all of the details. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The GTFS data from MTA Developer Resources contains the following unique start-end terminal pairs for weekday trips: User:Larry V/NYCS unique trips. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 23:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not a timetable - Need I say more? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a good and reasonable summary. It notably does NOT indicate that it would be inappropriate to discuss regular service patterns, which short turned trains are. Nothing which has been added would disagree with that link in any way.67.247.23.150 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the suggestion has never been to say "the following northbound trains terminate at 57th Street: X o'clock, Y o'clock, and Z o'clock". The content in question are short notes in the station lists saying "some trains terminate at 57th Street". As long as these notes remain short and generalized, I fail to see what is wrong with this. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The timetables are NOT always accurate. Trains do not always run according what they say. Schedules can change frequently. Just because a train is scheduled to terminate at one station today does not mean that same train will do the same thing tomorrow, a week, a month, or a year from now. Also, these rush hour short-turn terminals are not shown on station signs in addition to them not being on the service guide, subway map, or train roll signs. None of the stations along the N line say "Some trains to 57th Street-7th Avenue rush hours" and none of the stations along the 1 say "Some trains to 137th Street-City College rush hours." The one exception is the F. If you have been to Kings Highway, there are signs informing riders that rush hour service to Queens is available on the center track. Thus, they are not as significant as rush hour extensions, which are shown everywhere and applies to all scheduled trains. These short-turn terminals only apply to certain trains individually and are only seen on the timetables, which Wikipedia is not. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that trains do not always run exactly according to schedule affects not only the timetables, but also the maps (i.e. some scheduled stations may be skipped, a local train temporarily may run express for one section due to repairs, etc.) and the service guide (same reasons as for the maps). In any case, any change from the timetable is a deviation - the timetable is still the gold standard which most trains follow. The timetables are still, far and away, the most accurate published source available, and an encyclopedia should use such accurate, verifiable sources. As for most train roll-signs not showing the short-turn terminals, that does not change the fact that those trains still use the short-turn terminals. In any case, the timetables are sufficient evidence of these short-turns by themselves, because the timetables are they are official, published sources from the MTA. I can understand the sentiment of not including unimportant or unverifiable information on wikipedia. However, this information is clearly verifiable (official, published by the MTA), and it is definitely important for the reasons I have given in my last post (such as the large number of trains affected or large number of stations not served in many cases). As for wikipedia "not being a timetable", please note that I am not arguing that we must list the exact times and locations of every single train in the NYC subway, as on a timetable. However, that does not mean that we cannot use official timetables as a source to state that these short-turn trains and their terminals exist in the wikiarticles for the affected lines. There is a very big difference being making wikipedia a timetable and using timetables as a source of information. Wikipedia is also not a travel guide or a dictionary (among other things), but noone argues that travel guides or dictionaries cannot be used as sources where they are relevent (NYC subway timetables are certainly relevent to articles on NYC subway lines). All in all, so far, I have not yet seen anyone give a good reason not to include this information in the articles. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.193.129 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like there is a pretty strong consensus to include these short turns. 71.190.44.246 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (67.247 on vacation)

I would hardly call this a "consensus". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

4 people here, and a written policy in support... Only one against, and even there, they claim (elsewhere) that it is because of some policy nobody can seem to find a source for. Perhaps strong consensus is an overstatement, but I have yet to see any real evidence for opposition. 71.190.44.246 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am the same person as 72.80.193.129. I am calling this in favor of including the information. It has now been two and half weeks, the overwhelming majority of responses haven been in favor of inclusion, and noone has given a good reason not to include the information. Therefore, I am saying this issue has been closed. Thank you all for the feedback. Please have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.193.208 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging yard and tunnel articles

I think we should take all of the information on the articles about each individual yard and add them to the article List of New York City Subway yards. If you look at each yard article, you will see that they are all barely 1-2 paragraphs and it is not likely they will be expanded anytime soon. We cannot have stub articles sitting around forever, so we should take all the information about each yard and put them on one article. It should be too long. We should also do that for the New York City Subway tunnel articles (i.e. Rutgers Street Tunnel, 60th Street Tunnel, Clark Street Tunnel). Those articles are not likely to get expanded for years, so we should take everything from each article and create a new one called "List of New York City Subway tunnels." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you overstate the likelihood that any of those articles will ever get expanded beyond 1–2 paragraphs. There just isn't much to say about any one of those topics. I second your proposal. Larry V (talk | email) 17:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the yards- consolidation would improve the organization of this information. On the tunnels- not so much. I don't think there is any reason to combine them all. Some already are notable as their own articles, and combining them would be confusing with how we list river crossings.96.232.68.242 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking merging the yards wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but oppose merging the tunnels; as noted they would mess up the crossing succession boxes, which wouldn't serve anyone well. I also think a combined list poses other questions, such as what organizational scheme to follow. If we merge the tunnels with anything, they should be with the line that they are actually a part of. That just seems the most appropriate to me. oknazevad (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking about regarding the subway tunnel articles Oknazevad. We should merge the short paragraph in Rutgers Street Tunnel to the IND Sixth Avenue Line article and the same should go for the Clark Street Tunnel for the IRT Broadway - Seventh Avenue Line, Cranberry Street Tunnel for the IND Sixth Avenue Line and so forth. I tried doing that two years ago, but some IP reverted that, saying the tunnels are not the same as the lines they are part of, so they should have separate articles. I disagree with that statement, so if you think Oknazevad's idea of merging the tunnel articles with their respective lines, let me know. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like the best thing to do. We'll merge the yard articles to List of New York City Subway yards or New York City Subway yards (not sure if "List" is really appropriate if there's substantial content) and the tunnel articles as follows:

Current article…	…merges to
Concourse Tunnel	IND Concourse Line
Lexington Avenue Tunnel	IRT Lexington Avenue Line
149th Street Tunnel	IRT White Plains Road Line
63rd Street Tunnel	IND 63rd Street Line
60th Street Tunnel	BMT Broadway Line
53rd Street Tunnel	IND Queens Boulevard Line
Steinway Tunnel	IRT Flushing Line
14th Street Tunnel	BMT Canarsie Line
Rutgers Street Tunnel	IND Sixth Avenue Line
Cranberry Street Tunnel	IND Eighth Avenue Line
Clark Street Tunnel	IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line
Montague Street Tunnel	BMT Broadway Line
Joralemon Street Tunnel	IRT Lexington Avenue Line

Larry V (talk | email) 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

List looks good, for the most part. My only concern would be the Steinway Tunnel, as it predates its use as part the Subway, having been originally a streetcar tunnel, so it isn't entirely synonymous with the Flushing Line. But I could be convinced otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll say this; the current List of New York City Subway yards is tagged as having no references, perhaps the references to in the articles can be moved there. I was a little hestiant about the idea of moving the tunnel articles to the lines, because a lot of tunnels connect different lines, and there's also the issue of other pages of bridges and tunnels connecting between the articles, but I'm not unwilling to consider some merges. ----DanTD (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Steinway Tunnel has enough notability to stand as its own article, I don't see why it shouldn't. Looks a little anemic for my taste, but some TLC should take care of that. The problem with most of the tunnels is that they're not really notable enough to merit their own articles. Larry V (talk | email) 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oknazevad and Larry V above, concerning the Steinway Tunnels. They have a well documented history for 30 years prior to conversion for Dual Contract subway service, such as shown here in a vintage ERA article - http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/steinwaytunnels.html. These tunnels are also well known to the general public and to mainstream historians due to the William Steinway (of piano manufacturing fame) connection. Even completely non-railroad/transportation organizations, such as the Greater Astoria Historical Society, mention these tunnels (at http://www.astorialic.org/topics/people/steinway.shtml and http://www.astorialic.org/starjournal/1910s/1916feb_p.php).

The 63rd Street tunnel should also be a separate article because its lower level is built for LIRR use. Therefore, it is not exclusively part of any subway line and must have its own article.

Also, some of the NYC subway tunnels may have been considered significant technical achievements in their time, such some NYC road tunnels and bridges once were(such as the Holland Tunnel and Brooklyn Bridge). Other technical aspects of the NYC subway were definitely considered advanced in their time (such as the use of all steel subway cars in the original 1904 IRT order). A quick look at NYC Subway Resources shows numerous articles published about technical aspects (including some tunnels) of the NYC system in mainstream sources such as Scientific American, Engineering News, and by the US Department of the Interior (see http://www.nycsubway.org/irtsubway.html and http://www.nycsubway.org/dualcontracts.html). On the other hand, the San Francisco BART transbay tubes are considered advanced earthquake-resistant marvels even today, yet they do not have their own separate wikiarticle. So, I can go either way, except for the special cases of the Steinway and 63rd Street tunnels. I invite other contributors to chime in if this would make some of the other tunnels notable enough or not. Thanks. 72.80.193.208 (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

D'Oh! How could I forget the LIRR level of the 63rd St Tunnel? Yes, that should remain separate as well, as it's not just part of the Subway. oknazevad (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

While I am not convinced that merging the tunnel pages into line articles is a good idea (it seems as if there is fairly strong precedent for each river crossing to have its own page.) IF we do make these merges, I do take issue with another one of the above mentioned merges: the Montague tunnel page. This line is not simply part of the broadway line. It is also connected with the nassau! While I would probably suggest leaving this one separate, I think 4th avenue would be the most correct line to merge it with as MOST services using the tunnel through its history ran down the 4th avenue local. (Yes, I know about the M, QJ and QT.)67.247.23.150 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to talking about merging in general, and then figure out exemptions if necessary. Larry V (talk | email) 04:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that Joralemon Street Tunnel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. How should we work with this issue? ----DanTD (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it appears that leaving the tunnel articles separate would probably be the better and less confusing option. The reasons are:

1) We have too many exceptions - the Steinway Tunnels and 63rd Street Tunnels must be separate because of the service history prior to subway use (Steinway) and the LIRR level (63rd Street). Now the Montague Street tunnel and Joralemon Street tunnel are under possibly separate as well.

2) The NYC subway system is a complicated web - sometimes one tunnel connects to multiple lines, and sometimes one line connects to multiple tunnels as well. For example, the Queens Boulevard line connects to the 51th Street, 63rd Street, and 59th Street tunnels. User 67.247.23.150 brings up the valid point with the Montague Street tunnel as well. Also, the 59th street tunnel connects to both the Astoria Line and Queens Boulevard Line. Indeed, the Astoria Line connection is the older of the two, thus argubly the 59th Street tunnel is part of the Astoria Line (not the Queens Boulevard Line). The 51st street tunnel is part of the Queens Boulevard Line, and it also connects to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue lines. If you add subway bridges, the situation gets even worse - the Williamsburg Bridge carried trains from 6th Avenue for many years, and we all know about the numerous Manhattan Bridge connections. Because one tunnel can connect to multiple lines and vice versa, it appears to be more simple and less confusing just to leave the tunnel pages as they are.

3) The precedent of each tunnel having its own page has been upheld for NYC road tunnels and bridges. All such bridges and tunnels have their own pages - even relatively little known bridges such as the some of the Harlem River Bridges (145th Street Bridge, Madison Avenue Bridge, etc). Why not NYC subway tunnels as well? Some of them are as old, as important (in terms of usage by millions of commuters, etc), and as historic (the Steinway tunnel) as the road tunnels.

These are just my thoughts. Constructive comments are welcome.

72.80.193.208 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tackling these individually:

Even if half or 75% or 12/13 of the tunnels ended up deserving their own article, that doesn't mean the remaining ones shouldn't be merged. This isn't an all-or-nothing affair.
I don't understand this. A tunnel may serve trains from multiple outlying lines, and one line may branch into multiple tunnels, but only one physical line runs through each tunnel (with the exception of the 63rd Street Tunnel). The upper level of 63rd Street is the IND 63rd Street Line. 60th Street is BMT Broadway. 53rd Street is IND Queens Boulevard. Montague Street is BMT Broadway. The Williamburg Bridge is BMT Jamaica. This is not actually complicated. (We can ignore the mess that is the Manhattan Bridge, since it's got its own article.)
Whether or not the 145th Street Bridge gets its own article doesn't have anything to do with this, unless it reflects some kind of thoroughly reasoned precedent that could be referenced and applied here. We want "the tunnels should have their own articles because [insert compelling reasoning here]", not "the tunnels should have their own articles because all the other river crossings do". One major difference is that a tunnel description fits naturally into the article about its associated line, which bridges have no such fallback.

The critical problem is that most of the tunnel articles fail to assert notability and have very few reliable sources, thus failing two major Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, I'm almost certain that Concourse Tunnel would not survive an AfD. Larry V (talk | email) 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you mentioned the Concourse Tunnel Larry, since perhaps the Concourse Line could use a slight rewrite that would include the tunnel in it's description, and perhaps a separation of the history. I'm almost willing to merge that one before there's even a consensus, and add the Harlem River Tunnels template there as well. Having said that, the two anonymous IP's do have some valid points about merging the proper tunnels to the proper lines. ----DanTD (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in NRHP is pretty much an assurance of notability, so Joralemon Street Tunnel should probably remain a separate article, regardless of whatever else happens. Some more content would be very nice, though. Larry V (talk | email) 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think each yard and tunnel article needs to be evaluated on its individual merits. Personally I can't think of any offhand that shouldn't be merged. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just merged the IND Concourse Line with the Concourse Tunnel. There was absolutely no need for them to have separate articles since the tunnel is part of the line. I also included a "Description" section on the new article so that we have some information about the tunnel and made the Harlem River crossing navigation box visible. Hopefully, we can do the same for the rest of the tunnel articles. Someone should start merging the yard articles together. It seems obvious that we have reached a consensus that only one article about all the yards is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You dropped the infobox when you did the merge. Is that how this is going to work? Larry V (talk | email) 03:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The tunnel infobox, I mean. If we're going to redirect the tunnel articles to line articles, the line articles should incorporate the tunnel infoboxes in some way. Larry V (talk | email) 05:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do not see a need for a tunnel infobox on the new article. The information on it is already either on the article itself or the main infobox. An infobox for tunnel is not necessary, but if you want to add it to the new article, go right ahead. Put it below the current one if you want. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Larry; What is it about the IND Concourse Line article in it's present state that justifies a big citation tag? Because I swiped one from the Concourse Tunnel article before it was merged. ----DanTD (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I could probably add a few sentences to the Lexington Avenue Tunnel, but it would still be a stub. I hope I'll be able to do it before that article is merged into the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, just so everyone gets an idea of what it would look like. ----DanTD (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested page move

DReifGalaxyM31 has requested that Delancey Street – Essex Street (New York City Subway) be moved to Delancey Street / Essex Street (New York City Subway) per the project's naming convention. Discussion is on its talk page. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A podcast with episdes on NYC transit stations

The MuseumCast is the New York Transit Museum's podcast series. Individual podcasts are devoted to specific stations, artwork in stations, architects, etc. I found it while looking up an artist who has a subway installation and thought you all might be interested. It might be a good source or just make for some good external links. Cloveapple (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

<6>

I feel strongly that we should not use <6> in the 6 train article. My reasons were as follows: 1. It looks hideous. 2. <6> is not used in anything official. 3. <7> is not used on the 7 line page. 4. 6 Express is perfectly clear to any user Also: 5. we do not use (6) to describe the 6 Local. (or any other route such as the "(D)" )

I would suggest that perhaps we can use the bullets once in an explanatory note at the top of the page and then refer to them as 6 Express or 6 Local as they are generally known as. Perhaps 6 Pelham Express/6 Pelham Local would be best?

A related comment: I take strong offense at my edit being called vandalism. I explained why I made said edits each time I made them. I feel that the real vandalism was the unexplained reversion after each edit I made. If you have a problem with someone attempting to make improvements, EXPLAIN your problems and do not call it vandalism. Thank you. 71.190.44.152 (talk) (same as 67.247.23.150) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

I apologize that User:Acps110 considers your edits vandalism, but your edits, and I am sure that other IP users who are making similar edits are you, have shown that you are a very cocky person. You are acting as if you know everything about Wikipedia and your edits are perfect when neither is close to true. <6> does not look hideous and is used on all of its station articles. <7>, while not used on the 7 (I do not see a spot on the article where we can use them anyway), is used in all of its station articles as well (if they are not, then they will be added soon as WP:NYCPT is a work-in-progress). We do not use (6) to describe the 6 local because that is how regular service is described for all subway routes, but a diamond represents special express service that is currently used only for the 6 and 7 trains. The New York City Subway rolling stock uses diamond and circles on its route signs to indicate local and express service, so it is perfectly okay to use them here too. You do not own Wikipedia or this project, so if you do not like how we edit, get off this site and complain somewhere else. Sorry to be mean, but your know-it-all behavior is really annoying. Also, I removed your citation tags for the M train and reworded the sentence a bit. The individual line maps and timetables are more than enough proof that the M is the only service that goes through the same borough twice in one trip. The L train does enter Queens, but only for a small section between Halsey Street (which is located on the Brooklyn-Queens border, but is considered a Brooklyn station by the MTA as proven by the line map and timetable) and Wilson Avenue and does not have a station that is entirely in Queens. As a result, I removed the statement from the L train article saying that it briefly enters Queens because this is not the case according to the MTA. One other note: you do not know how to write signatures, do you? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I do not always sign posts. I assure you that such is entirely accidental. My goal is to improve the site here. I understand that that is your goal (as well as ACPS's and most other contributors) as well, so please do not assume that I do not realize that, and I further apologize if either of you took anything that way. I fully understand that I do not own wikipedia, much like none of the people involved here do. I made this post to attempt to get a consensus on a BETTER way to label the 6 line page. If any consensus is formed which says we should keep it the way it is, I will fully accept that, although I think we should be able to come up with a better way of showing such.71.190.44.152 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On the separate M line topic, I removed it because it is VERIFIABLY WRONG. The MAJORITY of Halsey station is in Queens. It just happens to also be in Brooklyn. Any label of Queens being present would result in confusion, as one would have to place the label in the middle of the station. As ANY MAP proves the statement wrong, said statement should not be on wikipedia. 71.190.44.152 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On the desire to not appear to be hiding behind any IP, I generally will indicate my home IP as part of my signature, and have listed such when my home IP changes. If an IP appears unlinked as such, it is probably not me. 71.190.44.152 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, here are a few tips for you: 1) please create an account because no one here takes IP users seriously due to high rate of vandalism, and 2) before you make any big changes, consult WP:NYCPT first even though it has not been very active lately. Also, I rewrote the M train article to make it accurate. The M going through the same borough twice in one trip is much more noticeable than the L for the following reasons: 1) The M uses two different lines (IND Queens Boulevard Line and BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) where as the L stays on the BMT Canarsie Line entirely. 2) The L enters Queens for just a short time with no stations entirely within the borough. 3) Many people do not know the exact location of the Brooklyn-Queens border. They will say they live in Queens when they really live in Brooklyn and vice-versa. 4) Based on the bus maps I own dating back to 1998, the Brooklyn-Queens border has shifted back and forth frequently throughout the years. One of my maps shows the L entirely in Brooklyn. So please do not revert the new changes I made to the M train article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable edit- I still have some reservations as to the significance, but you have created a correct statement out of a falsehood.71.190.44.152 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus icons

Mfs1013 (talk · contribs) has been inserting bus icons into various station articles, such as this diff for NYP and NJT ACL stations. What do you think? Should we stop it, expand it to NYCS...? I personally don't mind it, but it's not really necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind them myself, although I think most of them should be on the railroad stations(Metro-North, LIRR, Shore Line East, etc.,... ). I'm not sure how they'd look on the subway station articles. Perahps somebody would like to experiment with it there. ----DanTD (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening years for Newark City Subway stations

I just added a hidden category to the rest of the Newark City Subway articles(Yes, I know that's not the name used anymore, but it applies to these stations). Were all of them opened in 1935, or just the line in general between Military Park and Heller Parkway? ----DanTD (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Cemetery trolley stop in Brooklyn?

Over at the List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn article, there's a stop claiming to be at "Trinity Cemetery." That stop wouldn't happen to be this Trinity Cemetery, would it? ----DanTD (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Culver Shuttle Map; Yay or Nay?

Does anybody think I should request a map for the Culver Shuttle article from TWP's Maps task force? ----DanTD (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it wouldn't hurt. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Other possible maps

Now that I've tagged the Culver Shuttle with a map needed parameter, what about the Flushing and North Side Railroad and South Side Railroad of Long Island? Most of the F&NS consists of the current Port Washington Branch, although some sections are missing. SSRRLI includes the Montauk Branch west of Patchogue, Far Rockaway Branch, Bushwick Branch and Southern Hempstead Branch, so maybe these would be redundant. ----DanTD (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they would probably be a bit redundant. Not the worst redundancies, though, as they would include some stuff not in the current branches, and they'd be in their own articles, not over-stuffing the preset-day branch articles. I could go either way. oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, at least in the case of the former SSRRLI branches, I'll stick to Southern Hempstead and Bushwick. ----DanTD (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MNRR Locomotive MUs IDs, again

Once again, I'm calling for the identity of a locomotive on the Metro-North Railroad; Is this one getting ready to stop at Mount Vernon East Station an M2, or M4? ----DanTD (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not sure; it's hard to tell at that angle and size. Do you happen to remember the number of the unit?

And just to nitpick, multiple units, as these are, aren't usually called locomotives (even though they are subject to many of the same regulations). oknazevad (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't even check the number. The only time I really even looked at the numbers on any trains that day was on one of the subway trains I used to get to The Bronx before jumping onto the Harlem Line at Williams Bridge Station. I've considered posting a pic from that, but I'm not sure I want to do that and have to go through the process of renaming it once I find out the correct info. ----DanTD (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)!

NJT route templates need a change

So I was looking at the Morristown Line route template and something was really bothering me about it. It's wrong. The way the template is currently structured, it shows that all M&E trains go onto the NEC at Kearny, then have to get off again almost immediately after at the Waterfront Connection to go to Hoboken. That, of course, is utterly incorrect, as a) Hoboken bound trains never touch NEC rails and b) the Waterfront connection is actually a bit further out that the Kearney Connection along the M&E, and pointed the other way, so it is impossible to go over both on the same trip.

Anyone here good with those templates that can give this a fix (and presumably the Montclair-Boonton and Gladstone ones as well). Frankly, I don't even like the way they are currently structured to show the alignment to Hoboken as a divergent route. That is both historically and physically incorrect, as well. oknazevad (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Gladstone one backwards??? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that the Gladstone is such that as one reads it from top down, the milepost numbers increase. The PVL, NEC, RVL, and NJCL (heck the entire Newark Division) are the same. I kinda like that better. oknazevad (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Holban Yard

Should an article on the Holban Yard be written, or would it be better off an a sub-chapter of Hillside Facility (LIRR station). ----DanTD (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Port Authority NY-NJ Navbox

In all the years I've been on Wikipedia, I've never made a navigaton box. However I'm now considering one for the entire Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and not just one for Port Authority Trans-Hudson. With every other service they cover, ranging from AirTrains to the two Manhattan bus terminals, it's worth adding. If I can't or don't make one, I'd strongly suggest that other members do so. ----DanTD (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I never realized there wasn't one. It's definitely a worthy idea. I've done a couple. If you need a hand, let me know.oknazevad (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've begun drafting one here. Feel free to take a look.oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. But you should include all rail services, despite the fact that PATH already has a template of it's own. ----DanTD (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am. There's also the Airtrains and the NYNJ Rail carfloat listed now, as well as the bus terminals. Got to throw in a link for the PAPD and the World Trade Center, plus some other real estate. I'll finish later today when I get a chance. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the rail services when I was removing an extra pipe I saw. Since you're the one making the template, I'll let you do the rest. I can't wait to post this and the PATH navbox on the main page as well as everywhere else they belong. ----DanTD (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Law enforcement" instead of "Other," unless there are more. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, Oknazevad, if you don't want redlinks for all the other real estate holdings, perhaps adding them without links would suffice. ----DanTD (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I went with "other" so that it'd be open to, well, others. There's no other law enforcement agencies under the PANYNJ, so a "law enforcement" line would inherently be limited to the PAPD, and a navbox section with only one link is a bit of a weak layout. Likewise with the real estate line; while there's only one item listed now, the Port Authority does have other real estate assets that could go there. I just left them out for now as they'd be redlinks.

As for those redlinks, they should either be listed as such or omitted entirely. Navboxes exist to provide navigation between articles. Text that isn't a link, either to an existing article or a redlink to an article yet to be written, doesn't really add anything. It should be avoided in general; any item unlikely to get an article should just be omitted.

The real question is whether we should have a separate section for real-estate or move the WTC link to the "other" section. Unless others here think the other Port Authority real estate developments are likely to get articles, I'm leaning towards combining the sections. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your case for combining the segments. If a single page covering all other real estate assets existed, you could add that too. I'm willing to let you merge them now, and we can snatch it and use it as soon as you're done. Got a category in mind for it yet? ----DanTD (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So I combined the sections. I'm going to move the template to Template:PANYNJ navbox in a few moments. Feel free to put it at the relevant articles. Haven't any clue as to which categories it belongs; I relarely deal with cats in general. (I actually much prefer navboxes for navigation; maybe why I could throw one together like this.)oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion rampage

Many of our images in the Category:New York City Subway images have been tagged as orphans(despite being categorized), and then tagged for deletion due to a bot on a rampage this month. A lot of them don't have the best descriptions, and I've been trying to get them into the commons to keep them from being deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a simple, one-step method to transfer to Commons? I've never understood why people upload PD images to Wikipedia, where they can be deleted if not used. What do people have against Commons? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The may not fully understand the distinction, they may not know how to add stuff to Commons, or they may have doubts as to whether their image fits Commons' more stringent hosting requirements. I will say that Commons' warnings are a bit "scary" (for lack of a better word) to those who don't know the policies all that well. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally have nothing against it. I've uploaded at least three to the commons today from there, and I renamed two of them before they can be moved to the commons. I'm still trying to get User:Fan Railer to tell me where File:34 Interior.JPG is. It looks like an old car at the New York City Transit Museum. As for a one-step method, I don't think so. There is a tool for moving images to the commons which is attached to the commons tags, but it's not a one-step tool. ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is Fastily (talk · contribs), not a bot. I think a talk page message would stop him. However, all NYCPT images (with a few exceptions) do belong on commons. I think there's a mass tool to move to commons quickly, but I don't know about it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I starting going through the images slowly and didn't find any marked as orphans. I did find two that were unfairly marked as being possibly unfree images, however. In the past I have exported images to Commons, but it's time-consuming when done manually. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I marked those PUF's. Station artwork is copyrighted, and hence photographs of it are also copyrighted. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have my doubts about that, for otherwise how can we photograph subway station walls/interiors? They are covered with artwork that may/may not be copyrighted. IANAL but I don't see how we can be so restricted. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The only station artwork I saw there involves the two images of "Carrying On," by Janet Zweig & Edward del Rosario. Most of what I've had to deal with have been first tagged as orphans, then tagged for deletion, and it's not artwork. If you check the histories of File:207th Street Yard Train of Many Colors.JPG, File:72beam.jpeg, and File:Woodhaven tablet.jpeg, you'll see that they were tagged as orphans. File:34 Interior.JPG still is, but I'd still like to get it into the commons, and I'd still like to get a description before I do that. ----DanTD (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has chimed in with the car model. It is a well-known car from the IND line. It really should have been properly identified in the first place. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And I just found another shot of it. ----DanTD (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Station artwork in the background when the picture is of a train, etc. can be classified de minimis. Station artwork that is the main subject of the photograph is prohibited (except for name mosaics). — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't freedom of panorama come into play here? Subway stations are public spaces, after all, and there's no restriction on photography in the New York City Subway. So there's can be no expectation by the artist that photographs containing the artwork will not exist or can be controlled. (I am not a lawyer either, but that is the question that first came to mind.) oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to. Never heard of Freedom of Panorama before, and I'm glad there is at least one legal doctrine that is commonsensical. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

With all the discussions on copyright issues, I hope most of you realize the majority aren't being tagged for copyright violations. I just sent File:Slant Q.JPG to the commons, and I tried to ask Error46146 where this train was shot. I suspect it's the southern BMT Brighton Line, but I want to be absolutley certain. File:R33WF Scrap Line With R160B And R32 Closeup.JPG and File:R33WF Scrap Line With R160B Wide Shot.JPG look like more of Fan Railer's shots from the 207th Street Yard. I'll keep looking for more of them to move to the commons soon enough.----DanTD (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kill the orphans, said the bot

I figure there was excessive alarm over User:Fbot flagging pictures that are not in use, as eligible for deletion. It seems the operator accidentally gave the impression that "eligible" meant he intended to delete each file unless action was taken to save it, when he was merely calling attention (unnecessary attention, in my opinion) to the eligibility. Anyway the bot hasn't operated for a week now, either because it already flagged what it wanted, or because the operator was heeding the complaints. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, by tagging so many of them as being eligible for deletion simply becaus they're orphans, the operator makes it easier to get the images tagged for deletion. I'm still going to try to get them into the commons as quickly as I can, but I'm also rushing a lot of Rockland County, New York images into the commons as well. Many of them are of county roads and don't have summaries yet, and I've been filling them in as fast as I can. ----DanTD (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

M train railroad directions

See past discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_14#Eastern_Division_railroad_directions To summarize, the M and J operate in opposite service directions between Essex and Myrtle, while the railroad directions follow that of the M line. There is a claimed policy by a single user which I cannot find anywhere to follow service directions instead of railroad directions for next stop boxes. In the link above, there was no such factor taken into account. However we decide to deal with the J train, I am reverting any station with M train service to follow railroad direction as the current ones are factually wrong regardless for any station where the M stops, while either direction is arguably correct for the J. 68.173.54.48 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Above is by me- IP changed for some reason67.247.23.150 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I just edited and created new templates to fix the service direction problems on the infoboxes of all station from Essex Street to Myrtle Avenue. If anyone finds any mistakes, then by all means fix them. It makes sense to use service direction for the infoboxes because people know that more than railroad direction. I do not think a lot people know that in railroad direction, Essex Street is the northern terminal while Jamaica Center is the southern terminal. It would make sense if that is true because geographically, Essex Street is more to the north than Jamaica Center. However, since the MTA designates Jamaica-bound J trains as "northbound" and Manhattan-bound trains as "southbound," that is how it should be on the infoboxes. If we were to put in railroad directions, it would cause massive confusion. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your version is reasonable. Perhaps Myrtle and the Ferry Spur should be reversed, as there is no service to go by, and therefore railroad direction would be the only correct way, but I don't think such is a big deal.67.247.23.150 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Format of Names of Numbered Subway Stations.

I have noticed that stations with names consisting of numbers in the range of 1-9 are spelled out. The edits to make the station pages conform to this are linked to policy pages such as this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORDINAL#Numbers_as_figures_or_words However, these stations have specific names which generally consist of numerals. I think that the attempt to follow these policies actually violate them, as "Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage;" is listed as an exception from when one should spell out numbers. Station names are Proper names, and the numeral form is certainly the most common usage, as it is what is found on train signs, station signs, and all MTA Maps. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[[1]] For some past discussion on this. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't really disagree with the reasoning. Consistency of format in a series is also an considered variation from the guideline. Not to mention it's just a guideline, and its application can be decided against if there's a reason; here there's a reason, methinks. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Various service templates TFD'ed

I have nominated various services templates for deletion, because they were only used in the project subpage listings and not on any articles. Feel free to comment here. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Far Rockaway-Rockaway Beach elevations

I know I'm probably just guessing about this, but did the impact of the Great New England Hurricane of 1938 play any role in determining whether or not the Long Island Rail Road decided to elevate the Far Rockaway Branch and Rockaway Beach Branch along the Rockaway Peninsula in the early-1940s? ----DanTD (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MTA releases color standards

The MTA has released official colors here, I am updating the color templates. Should I update the subway bullets? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If they actually changed, I don't see why not. What I'd like to do though, is move all the non-line related templates out of the Templates for LIRR lines category into the Long Island Rail Road templates category. Perhaps even split the succession templates into their own category. The same goes for Metro-North, and perhaps some others.

They changed the file, I'm not going to update the templates again until they finalize it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some problems in articles about complexes

My greetings to the community. I see some elements of disorder in the articles about the NYCS complexes that require correction, but I don't want these edits to be done by a newcomer like me.

Link to article	Presentation on the MTA map	Problem
14th Street – Eighth Avenue (New York City Subway)	two separate labels, 14th Street and Eighth Avenue	a slash must be used and not a hyphen
Court Street – Borough Hall (New York City Subway)	two separate labels, Court Street and Borough Hall	a slash must be used and not a hyphen
Franklin Avenue – Botanic Garden (New York City Subway)	two separate bullets labeled Franklin Avenue and Botanic Garden	a slash must be used and not a hyphen
South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)	two separate bullets labeled South Ferry and Whitehall Street – South Ferry	a slash must be used and not a hyphen
Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street (New York City Subway)	two separate bullets labeled Jackson Heights – Roosevelt Avenue and 74th Street – Broadway	the complex name in the text differs from the title and the infobox; I tried to fix it, but my edit was undone
Fourth Avenue / Ninth Street (New York City Subway)	one bullet labeled Fourth Avenue – Ninth Street	1) hyphen on the map, slash in the article; 2) one of the stations in the article is titled just Ninth Street, and the second just Fourth Avenue
14th Street – Union Square (New York City Subway)	one bullet labeled 14th Street – Union Square	one of the stations in the article is titled just Union Square
Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street (New York City Subway)	Lexington Avenue / 63rd Street	slash on the map, hyphen in the article
~~Franklin Avenue – Fulton Street (New York City Subway)~~	~~Franklin Avenue~~	~~'Fulton Street' is the location of the complex, not a part of its name~~
Lexington Avenue / 51st – 53rd Streets (New York City Subway)	the EM bullet is labeled Lexington Avenue / 53rd Street with a slash	the EM station in the article is titled Lexington Avenue – 53rd Street with a hyphen
42nd Street / Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (New York City Subway)	the 7 bullet is labeled Fifth Avenue	the 7 station in the article is titled Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park
Chambers Street – World Trade Center / Park Place (New York City Subway)	three separate bullets, two of them labeled Chambers Street and World Trade Center	1) a slash must be used and not a hyphen; 2) this way of presentation on the map is described in the article, but the article itself calls the two stations together Chambers Street – World Trade Center and has only one section and one infobox for them
Canal Street (New York City Subway)	N/A	I know that the MTA defines this complex as four separate stations, but the article has only three sections for stations, there is only one section for two BMT Broadway Line stations (and it's more simple to divide it than the similar case in the previous article)

Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would point you to the station naming convention as to why these articles are named the way they are. Endashes are used between streets and landmarks, endashes are also used between elements of a single station (as depicted on the map), slashes are used between different portions of a station complex. A complex is one which has multiple lines crossing over each other with a free transfer passageway between them.

For your examples above,

14th Street – Eighth Avenue; was formerly listed on the map as one bullet with a single name for the entire complex, thus the endash; now listed as one bullet with two names for the separate portions of the complex. (Could be changed to a slash)
Court Street – Borough Hall; is a street name and a landmark, thus the endash.
Franklin Avenue – Botanic Garden; same as Court Street
South Ferry – Whitehall Street; was formerly listed on the map as one bullet with a single name for the entire complex; now listed as two stations with a free transfer (Could be changed to a slash); additionally the MTA generally lists a neighborhood name first then a street name and the area is sometimes known as South Ferry (So it wouldn't become South Ferry / Whitehall Street – South Ferry.)
Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street; was a consensus decision
Fourth Avenue / Ninth Street; shown as two separate stations on the map joined by a free transfer; thus the slash indicates the two separate parts of the connected station complex
14th Street – Union Square; is a street name and a landmark and is the same as Court Street – Borough Hall
Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street; was formerly shown on the map with a dash (Could be changed to a slash)
Franklin Avenue – Fulton Street; Fulton Street was added to the title to disambiguate it from the similarly named Franklin Avenue – Botanic Garden complex that is nearby
Lexington Avenue / 51st – 53rd Streets; was a consensus decision
42nd Street / Fifth Avenue; is shown on the map as two stations with a free transfer; thus the slash between the two parts of the complex, the endash separates that from the landmark, Bryant Park which applies to both parts of the station
Chambers Street – World Trade Center / Park Place; two stations with a free transfer; the names of each station are separated by a slash
Canal Street; a station complex shown on the map with one unified name for every platform; it's not necessary to divide the two BMT Broadway line platforms because they are both the same line.

The other thing to point out is that when linking to a station, it is done the same way whether it is a station or a complex. For example, Fort Hamilton Parkway (BMT Sea Beach Line) and Eighth Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line), a station and a complex. Each one of these station complex articles is rarely linked to directly except when the linked text is referring to the station complex as a whole. If you take a look at the what links here page for Court Square (New York City Subway) you will notice that there are many more links to Court Square – 23rd Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line), Court Square (IND Crosstown) and Court Square (IRT Flushing Line) than to the article itself. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've striked out one line that has got an answer.

The first 4 lines in my list are, according to the convention mentioned by you, "intersections where each platform has a different name", i.e. have to be written with a slash.

Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street appears in the convention as an example (!) in this form, "Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street", rather than "Jackson Heights – Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street – Broadway" that I tried to correct.

Fourth Avenue / Ninth Street is shown as two separate stations, you are right, but with one label for all trains, without any clarification about the relation between the parts of the label and the stations.

The rest of my questions apply to individual stations in the complexes. I know that their names are used in links, that's why I don't want to change them myself.

Vcohen (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've read the naming convention once more. Let's keep my list just to have it listed, but I don't want anybody to change names of articles. Maybe sometime I'll write a bot that knows to update "what links here", and then... Vcohen (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive search button

Is it just me, or is the archive search function, which replaced our list of archived messages a total rip-off? I just tried to search for a recently archived thread, and got a message asking "did you mean" something else. ----DanTD (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Redone to create list of archives. Somebody apparently converted it to a custom table. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New NJT map

So, it seems that NJ Transit has redone their system map entirely, as seen here. Notably, the Galdstone and Bergen County lines now have their own colors, separate from the Morristown and Main lines respectively (though in the former's case, it's just a lighter shade of green). So we're apparently going to need to update the various color boxes and logos for those lines, and draft a new map for the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations article (though that could likely just be recolored). I know about the NJT color template, but wouldn't Ind if someone checked if my perception of the new colors matched theirs. (This would certainly be easier if NJT released new color standards as the MTA recently did, but I'm not holding my breath on that.) oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I already did the colors, that's just a template which does everything for you. The logos are done, but there's a problem: the Morristown Line logo does not match the line color. I used the line color to avoid confusion. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the colors. (Didn't get a chance to get to it earlier.)

One additional thought: it appears from the new map that the name has become "Gladstone Line", instead of "Branch". Should we move the article, or wait to see if the name sticks? oknazevad (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Schedule says "Gladstone Branch", so will leave like that. Plus that's the common name. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line)

I've requested a move per the naming convention, of Hoyt Street – Fulton Mall (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) station to Hoyt Street (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) as the official map no longer shows it with the Fulton Mall suffix. Please comment on the move at Talk:Hoyt Street – Fulton Mall (IRT Eastern Parkway Line). Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that it has been renamed, how can we take it out of the "Article Alerts" chapter? ----DanTD (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That is taken care of by a bot, see Wikipedia:Article alerts. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New MTA Subway colors

On November 15th, the MTA updated the list of HTML colors at their developer site. Subsequently updates were made to both Template:NYCS color & commons:Category:New_York_City_Subway_bullets. Looking at the colors, they seem off.

e.g.

I would like to switch to the Pantone colors instead. I have started a discussion at Template talk:NYCS color.--Svgalbertian (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

New streetcar navbox

The NYC surface transit navbox used to be titled "Greater New York bus and streetcar transit," but all the streetcar related links were removed. I wouldn't mind bringing them back, possibly on a new navbox. It would make more sense than using the existing navbox as a substitute, just because it used to have trolleys. ----DanTD (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Private bus companies acquired by MTA Bus

Has anybody looked at the private bus company articles such as Jamaica Buses, Queens Surface Corporation, Command Bus Company, etc.? They all have citation tags regarding the former headquarters, but if you look at the archived websites, most of them have the address which easily confirms their locations. I don't know why nobody has even considered them? ----DanTD (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting BMT Fulton Street Line stations category

Earlier this year, I removed the Former Long Island Rail Road stations category out of almost all IND Rockaway Line station articles and moved them exclusively to their old LIRR station name redirects. The only one I left alone was Far Rockaway – Mott Avenue (IND Rockaway Line). I'm thinking of doing the same thing to the Category:BMT Fulton Street Line stations. Would anybody have a problem with this? ----DanTD (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove this category from the Fulton Street line stations. The stations that still exist were built via the Dual Contracts for the BMT. Much like the Culver line, those stations are now IND. I don't think it's a problem to have any of those stations in two different categories because they have been a part of both divisions. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That was the reason I had a dilemma about this, but I ended up doing it anyway. The only one I didn't do it to was Atlantic Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line), because it was Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) station before this, and became a Canarsie Line station less than a couple of decades later. -----DanTD (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New merger proposal

With the impending end of Long Island Bus on December 31, 2011, I am proposing the merger of MTA Regional Bus Operations and MTA Bus Company into New York City Transit buses, as the bus operation would now strictly be a New York City operation. This proposal has also been posted on all of the pages. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Using qualifiers when no ambiguity exists

The naming guidelines here vary from the norm without giving much reason. If there is no ambiguity, why do the article titles need to include the line? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Above question moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they're for stations rather than the streets and other locations they're named for. ----DanTD (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is a good reason for using that format as a qualifier to distinguish from the title of the article on the street or other location. When there is no article for the street or other location, however, there is no need for the qualifier. E.g., Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) could exist at Eastchester – Dyre Avenue, and should, per WP:PRECISION. This is also why 15 Park Avenue is at that title, and not 15 Park Avenue (film) even though it's for a film and not the address it's named for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's absolutley untrue. When I go to look for Nassau Boulevard (LIRR station), I don't want Nassau Boulevard. What does Nassau Boulevard itself mean to me if I'm not from the Garden City, New York vicinity? And how do you know somebody else won't be looking for real places located at 15 Park Avenue? ----DanTD (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "I disagree with it" ≠ "that's absolutely untrue". Redirects will carry you where you need to be. You'll notice your example includes (at the time of this writing) a red link. The guideline is hindering the readers, who now need to know the arcane naming convention instead of the common name, since there is no article at "Nassau Boulevard". I know that they won't find it, because there's no ambiguity among the Wikipedia articles. If there's nothing to disambiguate, there's no need for a disambiguating qualifier. If an article is ever written about the street Nassau Boulevard or the address 15 Park Avenue, then the decisions about which (if any) is the primary topic and what qualifiers and navigational aids are needed to serve the readers. But the current guideline here is what is known as a "foolish consistency". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The lack of an article means nothing. The article is for a railroad station, not a street. This kind of crap has been spewed here before, as well as on WP:Trains, and the person who dumped the station names didn't get it either. ----DanTD (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to work on your inter-editor skills. I have no disagreement about what the articles are for. I do disagree about who doesn't "get it", since the qualifiers do not affect what the articles are for. The article content will continue to exist exactly as it exists today regardless of whether the usual WP precision guidelines are used. If the qualifiers are dropped when no ambiguity exists, the article will still be for a railroad station, not a street, just like 15 Park Avenue is for a film and not an address. I just saw the earlier edit summary about "not this again". Perhaps the reason it keeps coming up (if it does) is because it varies from the broader guideline without any substantive difference to warrant that variation. If there is a substantive difference, adding that explanation to the guideline might help instead of spewing more crap here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't get it. There dab names are here, because they're for railroad stations. They're not for the streets, communities, parks, businesses, or anything else the stations are named after. If an article is for a Long Island Railroad Station, it's going to have the "(LIRR station)" suffix. If it's for a subway station on the IRT Dyre Avenue Line, it needs the "(IRT Dyre Avenue Line)" suffix. ----DanTD (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it because it isn't explained (and I don't think an explanation is forthcoming). Why does it need the suffix if there is no ambiguity for the un-suffixed version? When there is ambiguity, absolutely, a suffix is needed, and the format used here is fine. But it isn't needed when a suffix isn't needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@DanTD, unless you are suggesting that parenthetical suffixes such as "(LIRR station)" or "(IRT Dyre Avenue Line)" are part of the name of the station in the real world (and that there is evidence to back up such a suggestion), then the suffixes are an invention of Wikipedia expressly for the purpose of disambiguation. In such cases, consensus has been that we do not pre-emptively disambiguate titles. Such pre-emptive disambiguation leads to inexcusable laziness, as seen with the current redlink for Nassau Boulevard, while Nassau Boulevard (LIRR station) exists. Consensus can change, and there have been recent clamoring of discontent in other content areas, but at present, WP:PRECISION does pretty clearly discourage preemptive disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive had the exact same discussion with DanTD in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Edit threat: at the start of this year. I also oppose the practice of disambiguating by default used by this user (and project?) as being unnecessary and against Wiki-wide practices. There is no good reason why this projcte wuold need an exception, or why stations are more confusing or need disambiguating more than other types of topics. Fram (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right, and we've told you you were wrong back then too. And not here, you were also told you were wrong to do it on the main TWP talk page, when you unjustly removed the suffixes from Sacramento Light Rail station articles. ----DanTD (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This was the disruption that started the whole mess earlier this year. ----DanTD (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to your disruption and the reasonable discussion most other editors had there, and where a reasonable conclusion was reached by most people. Note that that conclusion only uses disambiguation where needed by the general Wikipedia guidelines, and not by your preferred system. Fram (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And despite this, you still insisted on kicking the suffixes off. As I've explained then, and now, THE ARTICLES ARE FOR THE RAILROAD STATIONS, not the streets, parks, and other sites where the stations are located. ----DanTD (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate reaction is "And despite this, you still insisted on tacking on suffixes even as it was explained then, and now, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY." The articles are indeed for railroad stations, not the streets, parks, or other sites, AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE WHEN WP:PRECISION IS FOLLOWED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the appropriate reaction is to look at the SUBJECT MATTER as the issue, and not the absence of articles with the same name!!! ----DanTD (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Precision is the wrong guideline here; WP:Primary topic is the right guideline. When a reader searches for Chambers Street they expect to get a street, not a subway station or when the search for Houston they expect to get a city, not a railroad station. Other rail systems in the US use the name of their system on ALL stations, for example Houston (Amtrak station), West Oakland (BART station), State/Lake (CTA station), Union Station (WMATA station) or White Plains (Metro-North station).

Using the suffix, New York City Subway, doesn't work because there are many stations with the same name. The project's naming convention says to use the suffix only for station complexes that have the multiple lines combined into a single article. The line name is used for disambiguation for all stations regardless of if they are a station or a station complex. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, primary topic only applies where there are multiple topics with the same title. Where there is only one article for a given title, primary topic does not apply. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. All rail system projects should follow WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. They should follow WP:Primary topic, and in these cases, the topics are the railroad and subway stations. ----DanTD (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Primary topic and WP:PRECISION do not contradict each other. Where no ambiguity exists, following WP:Primary topic means exactly dropping the qualifier. So we agree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you sure as hell want to make them contradict each other. Since the primary topics are the stations, the articles should be named for the stations. You're trying to make them appear to be for the streets, so no, we don't agree. ----DanTD (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't contradict, but you seem not to understand them. older ≠ wiser 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dan, take it easy. This is much ado about nothing. We've pointed out the current consensus as to why these articles are named the way they are. I don't know why JHunterJ and Bkonrad are saying WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not what has been said at all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it may not have been WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but it's certainly a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. ----DanTD (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's certainly a case of WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:COMMONNAME. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is used when no guidelines exists to support a position, which certainly isn't the case here. On the other hand, your position can be summed up with WP:ILIKEIT, since there is no other guideline that supports it. Your arguments (here and in the prior "consensus" discussions linked above) are long on exclamation marks, ALLCAPS, bolding, and invective, but the reasons given are not specific to stations at all. Yes, the stations are almost always named after a street or intersection, and in cases where there's an article about the street or intersection, a disambiguating qualifier is needed. In cases where there's no article about whatever the station is named after, WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:COMMONNAME all indicate that no qualifier is needed, just like in any other case where a topic (film, book, band, politician, city, or station) with an article is named after a topic without an article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it IS a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and you people are the ones using WP:IDON'TLIKEIT because YOU don't see any reason for the suffixes, even though the reasons behind them have been explained to you on numerous occasions. ----DanTD (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: simple contradiction, ALLCAPS, no guidelines to support (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not support using qualifiers when only one article exists for a supposedly-ambiguous title): WP:ILIKEIT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

JHunterJ and Bkonrad, why do you insist on removing the suffixes? That will make it harder to identify what the articles are about. Does this improve the encyclopedia by demanding change just for the sake of change? All of these articles have been at their respective titles for a very long time; there are very few article renames proposed on this project. Most of the recent article rename requests have only been because the MTA renamed some stations. This is profoundly disruptive to swoop in and demand change, while not listening to the consensus that already exists. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One reason is the example given above of Nassau Boulevard: the disambiguated version exists, the simple one doesn't. How is that helping the reader, who doesn't know your projects naming systems? How is it better to have a self-invented system instead using the general one, i.e. using the name posted in large letters at the front of the station? Why don't people get confused by the millions of articles about other subjects, but suddenly get so confused about stations that they need super-specific disambiguation which need to be the same for all stations of the same line, even those that don't have the name of a street at all? Why do we have Mastic – Shirley (LIRR station) instead of Mastic – Shirley? Fram (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But Mastic – Shirley can also refer to the combined vicinity of Mastic, New York and Shirley, New York, and it's not for that at all. It's for the Long Island Rail Road station named for both hamlets that serves both hamlets. ----DanTD (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't also refer to that in Wikipedia article space -- there's no article on that. If in the future there is, then in the future it can be disambiguated by determining in the future which if any is the primary topic. Readers will not get confused about the topic of the article because the well-written lede will tell them immediately what the article is about. DanTD, why do insist on including the suffixes? Does this improve the encyclopedia by demanding variance from the guidelines just for the sake of variance? There is no "profound" disruption, just profound incivility in your responses. There are very few articles that would need to be moved to better serve the readers by not leaving the base name a red link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, simply the fact that no article exists on it is no reason to remove the suffix. In the case of Roseville Road (Sacramento RT), Fram got rid of the "Sacramento RT" suffix, which means somebody who might be looking for another Roseville Road, or even the Roseville Road in Sacramento itself isn't going to find it, and is going to run into the station instead. ----DanTD (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no article existing is exactly the reason not to qualify the other article. Since there is no article about any of those roads, the reader wasn't going to find "it" anyway. So reaching an article about the station is an improvement over a base-name red link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And in the case of 7th & I / County Center and 8th & K (Sacramento RT), you readded the disambiguation after it had happily existed for a year and a half without it, even though it is hard to see with what other 7th & I / County Center and 8th & K it could be confused... Fram (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, what it's an example of is identifying the site as a Sacramento RT station. Otherwise it's just a couple of intersections. Actually, in cases like this, 7th & I / County Center (Sacramento RT) should be split off from 8th & K (Sacramento RT), according to the Official Sacramento Light Rail map. ----DanTD (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Identification of what something is is not done in the article title, but in the body of the article. This is the same in all other articles on Wikipedia, and in fact in most (all?) other encyclopedias as well. No one is going to come looking here for an intersection: people who come looking for 7th & I / County Center (or follow a link to it) are well aware of what they will find. Ans it is not as if "Sacramento RT" is so clear, I wouldn't have had any idea what Sacramento RT was if I hadn't been involved with these articles before. So you are using disambiguation against policy and with no actual benefits. Fram (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's you who is removing what you perceive as nothing but disambiguation and violating the policies of TWP and NYPT. ----DanTD (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Projects don't have policies. Fram (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. Acps110 and Oknazevad told you what it was, but you can just as easily look on the page. ----DanTD (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't find them in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines or in Category:Wikipedia policies. Pages which are not listed there are not policies. Fram (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You can find them here. ----DanTD (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Project-specific guidelines do not override site-wide policies. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and it isn't even a guideline, it is a "Wikipedia naming conventions proposals". 15:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A solution would be to simply use the word "station" in the title: Nassau Boulevard station, Mastic-Shirley station. That should satisfy WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE in most cases, allow most people to find what they're looking for or wikilinking to fairly easily, avoiding unnecessary disambiguation that makes those things more difficult, while properly describing what the article is about: it's about a station, not a boulevard or a combination of two neighboring villages. Station1 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are Long Island Rail Road stations, so no. Furthermore, if you had read the thread from WP:Trains, you'd realize that besides and Amagansett (LIRR station) there's also an "Amagansett Coast Guard Station," and in the case of the Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) station, there's also a "transfer station" and "recovery station" on Roseville Road in Sacramento County. And JHunterJ, no article is a bad reason. If you want to find out about the station, you look up the station. If you want to find out about the street, you look up the street. I just looked up "Stewart Avenue" this afternoon, and I ended up getting Metropolitan Parkway (Atlanta). What if I want one of the Stewart Avenues in Nassau County, New York, or some other street with that name. I'm screwed. ----DanTD (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of cases where disambiguation is not required, such as the Nassau Boulevard station and the Mastic-Shirley station. There's no reason these stations need to be identified as LIRR stations in the title any more than they need to be identified as 'train' stations or 'commuter train' stations. In cases where two stations (of any type) have the same name, then of course those need to be disambiguated. I see no article on WP about the Amagansett Coast Guard Station or the Roseville Road transfer or recovery stations, so unless and until articles are written about those topics (and they make the train stations not the primary topic), there's no need to disambiguate the article title. Station1 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No article isn't a good enough reason. Plus, the reason they're identified as LIRR stations is because they are LIRR stations. That's also the reason 103rd Street – Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line) is identified as an IRT Flushing Line station, and Norwood – 205th Street (IND Concourse Line) is an IND Concourse Line station, and 85th Street – Forest Parkway (BMT Jamaica Line) is a BMT Jamaica Line station. We're not going to dump the suffixes because no other places in the world have those names and that bothers you, or Fram, or JHunterJ, or anybody else. ----DanTD (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Station1 that a convention more like the UK rail station convention that uses natural language disambiguation as the first order naming convention and disambiguate further parenthetically only where needed. As it is, these titles are an unhelpful and confusing mess of unintuitive acronyms. And what is worse, the undisambiguated titles are in many cases a redlink. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@DanTD: 'No other article' is an excellent reason not to disambiguate; in fact, it's policy (WP:AT), meaning more than a few editors are concerned. A Brown Thrasher is a bird but we don't title it Brown Thrasher (bird), even if some people won't know it's a bird until they reach the article, because there is no other article on WP that needs the title. 103rd Street – Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line) is not "identified as an IRT Flushing Line station" in the title, it's identified as an "IRT Flushing Line". I happen to know what that means but most of the English-speaking world doesn't. "103rd Street – Corona Plaza station" would make much more sense to many more people (not to mention one could make the argument that the IRT doesn't really exist any more). Station1 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So use Brown Thrasher for the bird then, and if somebody writes an article named "Brown Thrasher" as a nickname for a boxer or something you can just disambiguate that. Just don't go around attacking WP:NYPT because we use "IRT White Plains Road Line" for all IRT White Plains Road Line stations, or "BMT Fourth Avenue Line" for all stations on that line, etc., etc., etc..... ----DanTD (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking anyone, much less an entire project. I thought we were having a discussion and trying to explain to each other why we have differing views. I assume you want the best for the readers and hope you realize every other editor in this discussion also wants that. Station1 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The hell you weren't. You, Fram, and JHunterJ(who actually stated this edit war), have been attacking us for our naming conventions. ----DanTD (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not attacked any project. I have "attacked" the naming convention used, and that's all. You have "attacked" the general, policy-based naming convention of Wikipedia as a whole, that doesn't mean that you or anyone else has been attacking Wikipedia for its naming conventions. Please don't mix a dispute over a naming convention with some attack against a project or its editors. Fram (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What "edit war"? As before, you really do need to work on your inter-editor skills. Asking a question on a Talk page, even if you keep trying to turn that discussion into an "us vs. them" situation, is not an edit war. Edit wars are when content changes are continuously reverted. No reversions are taking place here -- I made a page move (in line with the policies), it was reverted (in line with this project's stated but unexplained variation from the policies), and the discussion began. See WP:CIVIL. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "what edit war?" It's the one we're having right here, and you did start it when you changed Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) to Eastchester – Dyre Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DanTD, it would really help if you would terms in Wikipedia discussions in the way they are usually used on Wikipedia. You were confusing a project proposal with a Wikipedia policy earlier, and now you seem to be confusing a discussion with a edit war: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." We are "trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion", which is clearly not what is normally labeled an edit war here. Fram (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, JHunterJ is the one who started this, and you and others jumped in to join him. ----DanTD (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is not unusual for discussions to a) be started by someone, and b) be joined by other people, from all sides of the debate... But that has nothing to do with an edit war, so please stop calling it that in your edit summaries as well[2]. Fram (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The joining in isn't really the problem here. It's your intentions and your actions that bother me. ----DanTD (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's your incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and assumption of ownership that's the problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is you renaming an article when the naming standards have been well-established. You could just listen to those of us who try to explain why they're named the way they are and let it go, but instead you're trying to get rid of the system because some station names don't exist elsewhere. ----DanTD (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the bull-in-a-china shop, "I'm here to save you from yourself" attitude that is the problem. By removing the suffixes, you make it harder to navigate, not easier. The standard is well-established. Why don't you try proposing something better instead of change for change's sake? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the current system makes it easier to navigate is precisely what is disputed. The actual standard for disambiguation is also well-established on a much wider scale than this project. And as has already been pointed out, the UK rail projects have adopted a different approach that avoids these issues without making the navigation more complicated. And, so far as your last sentence, so far as I'm concerned the current system is unintelligible unless you already know what you want. The proposals to change that are an improvement. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (for ease of editing)

2¢:The current system is indeed very systematic, and the product of much previous discussion. That said it can be awkward for readers who don't know the system (which is bad; Wikipedia is written for readers, not editors) and over-disambiguates often. Remember, parenthetical disambiguators exist to make a title more precise when a reader needs the clarification to ensure they're at the right article, but only then. They do not exist to provide information that belongs in the body text. It's not just stations. I still believe Penn Line (MARC), Hudson Line (Metro-North) and South Shore Line (NICTD) are over-disambiguated; they're already the clear primary topic of their respective non-parenthetical titles, based on the other entries at the disambiguation pages, and the last one is especially unhelpful, as it's an unclear initialism that provides no clarification to someone who doesn't already know about the South Shore Line.

That said, I don't like station article titles that don't refer to the system or line precisely because they are often so repetitive. Not just on the NYC Subway. If I told you I grew up near the Hillsdale station, would you assume I grew up in California? (You'd be wrong!)

So I'm of two kinds on this myself, but I wanted to put out there some reasonings behind each view, if only to calm everyone down and get people to realize that no one is trying to be disruptive, they're just trying to make the encyclopedia easier to use. oknazevad (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC) PS: @Station1: While the IRT no longer exists, the proper names of the lines do still include the respective "IRT", "BMT" and "IND" to this day, despite all three names being long gone and the latter two having been unified into Division B. Though obscure, they are publicly visible. At the end of each subway plaform closes to the nearest emergency escape stairs hangs a red-orange sign that includes in white print the formal line (not route) name, station name, and a platform and track layout diagram. It's the best way to verify on which line a station actually lays. oknazevad (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the three you find overdisamibiguated;

Penn Line (MARC) without "(MARC)" could be misconstrued as an actual line within Pennsylvania, and worse, even the Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line, not the former railroad that owned it.
Hudson Line (Metro-North) was also the name given when it was owned by the New York Central Railroad. I'm a little more open on this, but it could also be misconstrued as the name for a sightseeing cruise ships along the Hudson River, such as the Circle Line.
South Shore Line (NICTD), I've actually heard people incorrectly refer to the Montauk Branch as the "South Shore Line," and it wouldn't surprise me if other railroad lines were given that name correctly or otherwise, so that one should stay. Plus the NITCD disambiguation gives it a sense of place. If commuter service were still operated by the Chicago SouthShore and South Bend Railroad, I'd want to see "CSS&SB" as the disambiguation, or maybe even just "CSS," if the initials aren't used elsewhere. ----DanTD (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, if the article has an entirely different name, then no disambiguation is needed. Period. Full stop. The disambiguation on the Hudson Line does nothing to disambiguate from the completely differently named Circle Line.

You seem to fail to understand the purpose of disambiguators; the do not exist to inform about material that belongs in the body text. If there's no other article with the same title (absent the parenthetical), then the parenthetical does not belong. And there's no other article of the form "Penn Line (xxx)"; the only other thing at the disambig page is Penn Line Manufacturing, a model train and slot car maker that's been defunct for 47 years. A clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (And a wholly unneeded disambiguation page; with only two items guidelines call for hatnotes, nit pages.)

Or to put it another way, it's not the job of a parenthetical disambiguator to let people know that the line is in Maryland, not Pennsylvania. That's the body text's job. Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line is already at a completely different title. No disambiguator is needed.

You made the same argument (about avoiding confusion with minor, informal usage) when the RM was put up at Atlantic Terminal. But that's not how the system works. We can never account for all such uses; it's an impossible task, especially with how broad you seem to interpret these. And it only reinforces errors anyway. I think you may need to think about the system a bit more to understand it better. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If the article ledes are written correctly (and they are: "The Penn Line is a MARC commuter rail line running from Union Station, Washington D.C. to Perryville, Maryland via Penn Station, Baltimore, Maryland on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. "), there is no chance of misconstruing it. If there is ambiguity (possibly as in the case of the South Shore Line), a disambiguation page should exist at the base name if there is no primary topic. But if there is no ambiguity, no qualifier is needed or should be used -- that is bad for the readers, as Oknazevad also noted, and doesn't help the editors -- they'll find an errant page and move it (as I did), not understand why the move was reverted, not find the answer in this guideline, ask for explanation, and find themselves in DanTD's inferno. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a South Shore Line disambiguation page. It contains three items. The first is the commuter rail line, which is clearly the primary topic. The second is al the freight operator on the same tracks, which can be better served with a hatnote. The third is an obscure, utterly uncommon usage for a portion of a Boston's Red Line that isn't even mentioned or supported in the Red Line article; it's unsourced and exceedingly unlikely as a search term. The hypothetical error for the Montauk Line isn't even mentioned, nor should it be as it would only serve to reinforce the error.

The term "Red Line" provides a proper contrast. I can, off the top of my head, think of six uses of the term "Red Line" as a proper name for a transit line. Others exist, and some lines are referred to as the "red line" less formally (if only because their proper names are difficult in English). The disambiguation page Red Line covers them all, and the lines actually, formally named "Red Line" get parenthetical disambiguators to specify of which system they're part (like Red Line (MBTA), Red Line (CTA), etc.) It's parenthetical because it's not actually part of the formal name, but it's included for just enough specificity. It doesn't exist to tell the reader that the Red Line runs from Alewife to Braintree (or Ashmont); the article body text does just that. So should it be with all parentheticals. oknazevad (talk)

Okay, so you've got a section of the the MBTA Red Line referred to as the "South Shore Line." That's another example and a better one than the Montauk Branch, which just proves my point. ----DanTD (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's an equally poor one at best. It's unsourced. As far as anyone can tell, it hypothetical and erroneous. It shouldn't even be on the disambiguation page. And it is exactly the sort of unneccessary flack that prevents a clear understanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRECISION. I have yet to see anyone produce an example of something else primarily called "South Shore Line" in common usage, except for a series of hypothetical common errors. We don't name articles based on mistakes. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If a reader actually wants to go to an article on a line in Pennsylvania, and searches for the Penn Line only to wind up on a MARC train related article, that's bad for readers too. The qualifier is there to prevent that from happening. ----DanTD (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no line in Pennsylvania called the "Penn Line" in common usage. So I don't know what they'd be looking for there. You're putting forth hypotheticals with little basis in actual usage. That's exactly what I'm refering to above. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that readers who have not been properly indoctrinated into the minutiae of the railfan subculture are screwed. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying anybody who looks for one thing and gets something else is screwed. ----DanTD (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except by your position, unless one already knows and understands the arcane details of rail naming conventions, they essentially have to guess at what the article title might be. A person looking for the Nassau Boulevard station article at that title (which is apparently what the station is actually called) would be SOL with your system. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point of this discussion. If an article is about a train station, that should be clear in the title. Why is that undesirable? It is the most precise way of naming the article. I'm having difficulty understanding the objection to that. I have no hesitancy disagreeing with the majority on this project when I feel it's wrong (I still believe it should be "New York subways") but not this time. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. That stand is like saying all film articles should have " (film)" appended, all politician articles should have " (politician)" appended, all band articles should have " (band)" appended, and all other articles should have " ([something else])" appended. Leaving the base name (which should be the common name) empty (red link) hinders the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@ScottyBerg If the more sensible approach to naming stations of the London Transport project was adopted, much of this would be moot. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm trashing London, but this just wouldn't work here. For one thing, we don't call our subway stations "tubes." For another we have multiple regional rail, rapid transit, light rail, and interurban systems that aren't connected to each other. We go by railroads, lines, and system names when we name these articles. I can't even see how it can work in London, or the rest of the UK, but you seem fine with it over there, so I'm not going to raise a ruckus. ----DanTD (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
See my reply below. Silly to think that the guideline would not need to be adapted. older ≠ wiser 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is just touble making! Why do people who have never contributed any substantial content to these stations object to what others do? Get out of here! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
No, thanks. You have mistaken this project in Wikipedia for an independent stations wiki. Why to editors who have made substantial contributions to this project have such an aversion to civility? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. Projects do not get to override generally accepted site-wide practices and projects do not get to dictate who may or may not participate in discussions that pertain to articles within the scope of the project. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh you've got me all wrong, I don't really care about the name, and this is not my project. I'm sorry that some of you seem to need to mess with others' work, without contributing in any constructive way. These titles don't matter - it should be about the content. It's just sad. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case you've fallen even lower in my estimation. Why do editors who have no interest in resolving a disagreement AND have no other interest in the matter feel the need to drop by and make unhelpful inflammatory remarks. older ≠ wiser 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get off on tangents please. London Transit station names are not applicable, as NYC subway stations are commonly not referred to as "stations" as part of their official title. No one says, "I'm going to "Second Avenue Station." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. Of of course that convention would need to be adapted and not taken in total as is. The point was to offer a similar project that came up with a solution that avoided the problems here. And for the record, some people do in fact refer to "Second Avenue station" (note that "station" should be lower case as as it is not part of the proper name): [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] older ≠ wiser 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (except for that first sentence - maybe that should be stricken?). When not referred to as simply Second Avenue (which is already taken as a title), it's most likely to be referred to, searched for, or linked as Second Avenue station. Even someone familiar with NY subways is unlikely to intuitively type in a search box "Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line)" (in fact, what line it's on may be some of the info they are trying to find). I would likely search for West 4th Street station or Chambers Street station or Jamaica station (at least Jamaica Station is a redirect). Station1 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree (as I said in that earlier discussion) that having XX station as the name would solve most of the problems, both those of over-disambiguation and those of being too vague a name. Duplicate ones can be resolved as "XX station (YY line)" or something similar, but only where needed, not as a default. A naming convention in that direction would probably get my support. Fram (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, because the Second Avenue station on the IND Sixth Avenue Line is the only Second Avenue station in the whole world.(Sarcasm off). Get this through your heads; You're messing these articles up not just for railfans, but readers in general by eliminating these qualifiers. ----DanTD (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication of this messing anything up, other than your cries that it does. On the other hand, WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:COMMONNAME are used with primary-topic and only-topic articles on many, many topics being placed at titles that do not explicitly qualify the topic, and the topic-fans and readers in general are not messed up in any way. The editors provide article content and readers find and read the article content successfully over and over again every day. Get that through your head. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does mess things up. This particular Second Avenue Station is for the IND Sixth Avenue Line. Here's another tip for those of you who insist on forcing us to get rid of the qualifiers; Just because something doesn't exist on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the real world. ----DanTD (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you this question, Dan: What need does the inclusion of parentheticals address? How do they help someone unfamiliar with the system? If the person doesn't already know what line a station is on, does it not actually make finding the article harder, defeating the purpose of something that's supposed to clarify? Those are the objections being raised, which you haven't addressed.

And, by the way, there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who has had no previous dealings with an article (or series, as here) coming along And bringing up what they see as a problem, nor with others agreeing with them. Don't take it personally! oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The way it's set up, every single station on a subway line gets a related suffix, whether there's a disambiguation or not, and in almost all cases the same goes for railroad lines. I've never really had a problem with that, and not too many other people on WP:NYPT have either. In fact, I have more of a problem with stations that are inconsistent with the naming conventions, such as Morris Park Facility, and Atlantic Terminal. In the case of Morris Park, the naming exception seems to be because it's a rail yard. I originally created the article Hillside Facility (LIRR station) and I still remember making it without the "LIRR stations" suffix because of this, and it was renamed, which has made me wonder why this yard has it, but Morris Park doesn't. Atlantic Terminal is just too close in name to the Atlantic Terminal Mall, and Atlantic City Rail Terminal, although I've become a little less concerned about any potential confusion with the station in Atlantic City. There's also Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center, which was previously separate from Hempstead (LIRR station), and which I neither created nor merged. I really wasn't fond of that, but I let it go.

As far as taking this personally, I'm not. What I am taking personally is other editors here ganging up on me for trying to maintain the standards. ----DanTD (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New consensus disagreeing with you is not "ganging up". Your inability to engage in civil discussion does not make you the victim. You should stop attacking other editors for asking questions, stop casting WP:BRD as an edit war, and if you believe that the broader policies should be varied here, identify understandable reasons for it so that they can be included in the project page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that there would have to be an awfully good reason under policy to change the titles of hundreds of articles in which stable consensuses exist as to their titles in the articles and this project. No one has yet raised one. As for civility, I think that DanTD has been perfectly civil, whereas I was called "stupid" and the remark has not been reverted. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please search for "crap", "hell", and "edit war" above, or "WTF?", "you people", "Liar!", "my ass", or "crap" in the edit summaries in the history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I'm a little more concerned with the policy imperative that makes it absolutely essential to change the names of hundreds of perfectly stable, uncontentious New York City subway articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, what about a policy that makes it acceptable to change the names of the contentious articles as they are encountered, without hubbub. I wasn't suggesting that it must be done all at once, and yesterday (although possibly someone with experience with bots could make it more efficient, and still without the implying that the world or Wikipedia would end without it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know of any that are contentious. Are there articles where the title is in dispute? ScottyBerg (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, but to start with a possibly low-controversy example, Hillside Facility (LIRR station) mentioned above is really about a 30-acre maintenance facility, not primarily a station. Yes, trains stop there for employees only, but that is not the location's main purpose or the main topic of the article. The current title is actually somewhat misleading. Would anyone object if it were moved over its redirect to Hillside Facility? Station1 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the one I contended should not have a qualifier: Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Fram noted Mastic – Shirley (LIRR station). Bkonrad noted Nassau Boulevard (LIRR station). Fram's link to earlier discussion included Merillon Avenue (LIRR station), and the opposing-view-point-named Alkali Flat / La Valentina, Roseville Road, Historic Folsom. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see the concern about Hillside Facility, but not about the other examples. They are transit stations and should be labeled as such. I think that the opposing examples you offer are lacking in not indicating that they are stations. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a move for the facility, but I agree with ScottyBerg on the others. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How would you and ScottyBerg feel about a move for Highbridge (Metro-North station)? Keep in mind that it was originally a New York Central Railroad station before it became a maintenance facility like Morris Park and Hillside Facilities. ----DanTD (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed, as it's currently not a station. Maybe Highbridge (NYC station) should be redirected to it? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fairly reasonable to me. I think the only reason to keep the current station names for the yards, is because they include stations, even if they're just for employees. Any similar examples out there? ----DanTD (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Highbridge (Metro North facility)? It's main thing is that it's a facility, not a station. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, but if we did that, we'd have to rename Hillside Facility and Morris Park too. ----DanTD (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. That's just a couple of fairly obscure articles. It's not a mass renaming of hundreds of articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just as willing to do those. One other thing I wanted to do with Hillside (LIRR facility) was add a section on the Holban Yard, which pre-dates the station by nearly a century. Oh BTW, I just added Highbridge (NYC station) as a redirect to the current Highbridge (Metro North facility). ----DanTD (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be two different concerns: clarity and ambiguity. If the title is ambiguous on Wikipedia, then a qualifier is used on the non-primary topics. If the title isn't clear enough, then it needs a better (unqualified) title for its common name., because clearly the title isn't its common name, or people commonly referring to it that way would be unclear. Since these titles are unambiguous on Wikipedia, they don't need a qualifier. If they aren't clear, the earlier suggestion of adding " station" would clarify them. I believe that the titles without " station" are adequate (by way of analogy, no one appears to be confused by the title of 15 Park Avenue), given that the lede of the article will immediately give the complete context, but if " station" is needed, it should be added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

All the examples cited so far are actually pretty good examples of where some kind of qualifier is needed. The exceptions seem to be more cases of the articles being misnamed, more or less. That is, the articles are really about railroad yards and not stations. If there are such exceptions, they can be taken into consideration. I'm not seeing a good case being made for a wholesale renaming of articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the examples cited so far are examples of titles that need qualifiers: all of those titles are unique on Wikipedia without the qualifiers. The other concern, that they are not the correct common name of the topic, can be addressed by using the correct common name (e.g., Roseville Road station, if that's what people call it to avoid being misunderstood). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See, that's where I would disagree with you. I don't see anything in policy that prevents us from having common-sense qualifiers, or what would be gained by removing them from the ones now there. On the contrary, I think that a mass renaming, as this implies, would cause an enormous amount of disruption and confusion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from having common-sense qualifiers. When a qualifier is needed, the common-sense qualifiers this project uses are great. OTOH, WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:COMMONNAME policies do agree that no qualifier is needed where no ambiguity exists. If the unqualified name is not adequate, what you need it not a qualifier, but a better title. Such as one ending in " station", if the concern is that the reader won't read the first line of the lede to recognize that the article is about a station. The problem with the current project page is that it varies needlessly from those policies. No disruption or confusion is needed, requested, or in store. Pages can be renamed to the proper unqualified title as editors encounter them (as I did), or if an editor experienced with bots or other mass-renaming efforts is so inclined, those tools can be used to perform the renamings again without any disruption or confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Like everything else in article-space, titles should primarily be arranged for the benefit of readers, not for consistency with a naming convention known only by a tiny subset of active editors. It's easy for active editors to lose sight of this principle when discussing norms on WikiProject pages. bobrayner (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you that we don't want to be rigid, I fail to see the harm of the current naming conventions, and I think there is a good reason for them. Admittedly, we New York subway buffs (and let's face it, most of us active editors are just that) tend to be a bit possessive of these articles. As I mentioned earlier, we have the main article with a capital "s" in "subways" despite thin evidence that it should be that way. However, subway/transit station names are prone to duplication in this city, because we have so many, especially when you factor in defunct lines. There are, for instance, something like seven stations on some midtown subway lines, past and present, counting defunct elevated lines (2nd Avenue El, Third Avenue El, Lexington Ave. Subway, Sixth Avenue El, Sixth Avenue subway, Eighth Avenue subway, Ninth Avenue El). Actually eight, if you include PATH stations. So there's a valid reason for naming conventions. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But I fail to see the harm in following the standard conventions, since the naming conventions here would be used for those ambiguous station names. When station names are duplicated and the multiple stations yield multiple article, ambiguity exists and needs to be resolved, and the qualifiers here do that job perfectly. So there's a valid reason for the naming conventions when the titles are ambiguous on Wikipedia. OTOH, there's no reason for the qualifier when the title isn't ambiguous on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. But the problem is that in NYC, which is my primary point of reference, virtually every street upon which there is a station is itself notable. Stations were built on main streets. So while I'm not married to the naming conventions, I'm in no great hurry to discard them, or view them as a reason to get my underwear in a twist. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mackensen's arbitrary section break

I'm sorry, I'm a late-comer and see that we've gotten to the pistols-at-dawn stage. I know both Bkonrad and DanTD to be reasonable people so I can't imagine how we've gotten this far. Can someone tell me, in small words and stripped of hyperbole, why we're contemplating a rename of articles? Are readers confused? Just so cards are on the table, I tend to value consistency and stability; if we're changing a convention there should be a good reason. Potentially we're talking about thousands of articles, after all. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct one point: no pistols here. I think people are pretty relaxed and civil. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The executive summary is... This began with this edit where JHunterJ boldly renamed Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) to "Eastchester – Dyre Avenue", which I reverted as against the naming convention of the project. He and Bkonrad seem convinced that this "error in disambiguation" needs to be removed immediately per WP:PRECISION from hundreds if not thousands of articles. (They were quoting WP:PRECISION, as why these suffixes should be removed immediately without waiting for the consensus of the project members. I don't see anyone confused with the titles, only the ignoring of the established consensus is why it has escalated to the pistols-at-dawn stage.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No immediacy: I've said above that the pages can be brought into alignment with WP policies as they are encountered, unless someone (not me) wants to get it botified. I don't see anyone confused with the unqualified titles, only the ignoring of the established WP consensus & policies is why it has come up at all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy really isn't meant to be prescriptive in the fashion you suggest, and I don't see how you can read WP:PRECISION and come away with the idea that anything needs to be done. In the first instance, there's often considerable ambiguity as the proper name of a station. Official sources often conflict with secondary sources, and a place's name can change over time. It may also have different names if different providers serve it; it may have "official" names (e.g. named after some local worthy) but then a more common name used in everyday discussion (which then also appears in various sources). All of this mitigates against natural disambiguation. We've discussed it on WikiProject:Trains and no alternatives to parenthetical disambiguation gained consensus. Parenthetical disambiguation, however, in the manner of NAME (PRIMARY PROVIDER) allows identification of the station and helps assure the reader that they've found the right place.

Now, moving on, another section of the Article titles policy is Explicit conventions (WP:MOSAT). This states, in part, that "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." Now, I don't think anyone has criticized the benefits of this naming convention, and the disruption caused by renaming articles willy-nilly would benefit no one. When there are thousands of like articles, whose names present similar challenges and which are naturally grouped, you need a specific naming convention. It's good for the editors; it's good for the readers. If there needs to be a better convention then that's one conversation, but it's not the conversation we're having. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is the one we're having. Many people have suggested and supported the use of X station (or a variation thereof) as the naming convention, with further disambiguation only where needed, just like it is done for all other railway stations. Take a look at Category:Railway stations opened in 1848: notice which ones are the odd ones out? Fram (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it good for the readers? Out of the hundreds of laypeople who view Eastchester – Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) every month, do we really believe that even one of them typed exactly that term into the search box? (I note we have redirects from other similar structured names which are highly implausible search terms). Apart from project members who routinely look at lots of different IRT articles, can anybody honestly argue that it's a more readable title for the silent majority of readers who don't turn up on project pages to discuss naming conventions? However, I think it would be reasonable to tack "station" on the end, because that describes what the article is about, rather than being a standardised string reflecting how some editors have grouped articles. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you type in "Eastchester-Dyre Avenue" in the search box, Wikipedia automatically suggests the correct article name. Or an article with that name can be created and it can redirect to the article on the station. As a practical matter I don't see readers being disadvantaged. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you type in "Wall Street", you get too many results in the search box (nothing we can do about that); if you type in "Wall Street Station", you get none in the search box. A disambiguation of that name would be a first step; using the normal (more natural) naming convention would be a better solution still. I don't see the readers being helped here. Fram (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. There already is a Wall Street disambiguation page, Wall Street (disambiguation), which shows the two subway stations for that street. As a matter of fact, this shows why the naming conventions are sound, because that tiny street has two stations a couple of blocks from each other. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Casual readers won't know that they have to look for Wall Street (disambiguation). They will (probably) use the search box, get too many results when they have typed "Wall Street", and one of the logical things they may do is continue typing "Wall Street Station", which will give them nothing. The current naming convention doesn't help them, using the standard station convention used for almost everything except NY transport would be much more helpful. Fram (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly create a Wall Street station as a disambiguation page. Wall Street subway station too. That's not a bad idea. Those pages can then list the two stations on Wall Street, plus whatever defunct elevated lines may have formerly served the street. We can do the same thing to other major subway stations in Manhattan and elsewhere. For example, 34th Street subway station can list the two IND stations, the defunct lines, and perhaps also the 33rd Street Lexington Avenue station, etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good first step. Better would be if the articles followed the normal naming convention, i.e. "Wall Street Station (AA line)" and Wall Street Station (BB line)", which would mean that readers didn't even have to go via the disambiguation, and that readers and editors who are used to our general station naming convention don't get confused or irritated by this NY specific one. Fram (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that "Wall Street station" is not commonly used to refer to either of those stations. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't many of these 30k News sources for either station?[9] Fram (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think those items establish common usage at all, especially since the most prominent ones date back decades. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times has used "Wall Street station" 10 times in the past decade and "Wall Street subway station" 5 times, but has never used "Wall Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)". Station1 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That means very little when there are two Wall Street Subway stations on Wall Street (Manhattan). ----DanTD (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It only addresses the assertion that "Wall Street station" is not common usage. We all agree that when two stations share a name we must disambiguate at least one. Station1 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mackensen, that was just the summary you asked for. Suggesting that policy isn't meant to be prescriptive is leading to the discussions already in place in the longer thread above. But in short, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are good for the readers, and following them here will be invisible for most of the readers (who, as you noted, are not using the full name in the Search box anyway). So no downside, and potential benefit for the instances where a reader is using the common name directly. (As well as some even more obscure technical benefits, but which are moot, since there's no drawback to following the broader policies and no reason to ignore them.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says

If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title).

So if you agree that having the parenthetical disambiguation is "more appropriate" for one reason or another, there's no conflict with PRIMARYTOPIC: just make a redirect. If the article is not PRIMARYTOPIC for the street name or whatever, it will be accessible from a disambig page. In no case is it possible for the extra information in the title to provide any disadvantage to the reader trying to find articles or guess what they're about. But there should certainly at least be either redirects or disambigs at Nassau Boulevard and Second Avenue station, no? Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the conclusion. I don't agree with the assumption that parenthetical disambiguation is needed when there is no ambiguity (per WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME), but the red links should not be red. I volunteer to address that by moving the current articles to those names. The parenthetical "disambiguation" would then be a redirect to the precise common name, and provide no disadvantage to the reader trying to find the article or determine what they're about -- proper ledes and, if needed, better common names (e.g., Nassau Boulevard station, as a target of the redirects at the current title and at Nassau Boulevard) would ensure that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bullet shifting

Not that I mind, but does anybody notice the all the bullets in the subway station infoboxes have shifted to the left? If this was deliberate, can somebody tell me why this was changed? ----DanTD (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I see this is also happening on Metro-North, Amtrak, and MBTA, which means it's happening all over TWP. I'm going to have to contact them. ----DanTD (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed now. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IRT owned trolleys

Two trolley lines, New York and Long Island Traction Company, and Long Island Electric Railway were owned partially by the Long Island Rail Road, and partially by Interborough Rapid Transit. Did IRT own any other trolley companies in the city and/or vicinity? ----DanTD (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A noob's question

AFAIK, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Is it necessary to reflect temporary changes, such as closure of stations for reconstruction, like here? IMHO, it's enough to leave a note at the end of the article, but not change data in the infobox. Am I wrong? Vcohen (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to bring this issue up especially since User:Acps110 just updated numerous articles to reflect the upcoming weekend service disruptions on the 7 train, which I do not agree with it all. According to http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/building7update.htm this], the shutdown of service between Queensboro Plaza and Manhattan will only happen for 11 weekends, certainly not enough for it to be considered "long term." This type of shutdown has happened on the 7 many times before and never shown on the articles. There are a lot of 2-3 month long service changes happening to other trains in the system like this one for the J train that is supposed to last until April 13 or this one with the Q that will happen every weekend until March. Neither of them are mentioned here. Since Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the articles should not mention any temporary service change, no matter how long they will last, and if no one can give a legit reason what is so important about the 7 train's G.O. that is has to be added (I highly doubt the MTA's is going to print a new map or timetable showing this shutdown), I will revert all the changes Acps110 made. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of times that this has been done. The most recent examples are the long term shut-downs of Dyckman Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line), Smith–Ninth Streets (IND Culver Line), 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line) and Fort Hamilton Parkway (IND Culver Line). It was also done for the long term shut-down of the White Plains Road Line express service for signalling reconstruction and the Brighton Line express service suspension. (link to discussion about Brighton Express Suspension)

If we were a travel guide, the changes would include all of the related bus substitutions and precisely how to get from the closed stations to an open station. The way service is shown is no different than the J train not serving the last two stations on weekends.

The J re-route and the Q suspension you mention above do not close any stations. The fact that six stations have no service on weekends, was primarily what I wanted to show. That's not being a travel guide, just showing the service that is or isn't running. I think it would be dishonest to continue to show the 7 train running on weekends when it has been announced that this will be happening for months. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

1) The service disruption I used in my previous comment DOES fully or partially shut down some stations. Seventh Avenue, the Brighton tracks and platforms of Atlantic Avenue - Pacific Street, and the Queens-bound side of the four stations between Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction are closed during the times these GOs are in effect. 2) This shutdown on the 7 is NOT the same as the weekend cut back on the J because that is the J's normal service. It has always terminated at Chambers Street instead of Broad Street on weekends since 1994 and there are no plans to change that. However, the 7 train shutdown is only temporary and an expected completion date has already been made (April 2). That day will come before we know it and we will have to revert all the changes Acps110 made. 3). The reason we showed the suspension of express service on the BMT Brighton Line and IRT White Plains Road Line on the articles was because they lasted for over a year and the MTA printed new maps and timetables showing the 5 and B trains running local during this time (in fact, most maps on subway stations and cars still show the B running local). However, there have been no maps or timetables made that reflect the 7 train shutdown (except it skipping Court Square) and I highly doubt that will change being that this G.O. is only happening for 11 weekends. The 7's individual map on the MTA website still shows it running to Manhattan at all times. 4) This shutdown on the 7 has happened numerous times in recent years and never been shown on the articles until now. The edits Acps110 made makes it look like this service change is permanent and the 7 will always terminate at Queensboro Plaza on weekends from now on. 5) Because of this, I propose we fix those articles to show the 7's normal service, but make a note saying something like "Due to construction on the Steinway Tunnel, 7 trains will not operate between Queensboro Plaza and Times Square on weekends until April 2" on the service article and add a sentence on each of the affected stations saying something like "Due to construction on the Steinway Tunnel, this station will be closed on weekends until April 2." We did this to the 5 and B train articles when they ran local because we knew the service changes were temporary and were given an anticipated end date. Once the repairs on the White Plains Road and Brighton Lines were finished, the 5 and B trains resumed normal express service. It is the same here with the 7 because we know once the repairs are done, the 7 will resume service to Manhattan at all times. No matter what, we should always include the train's normal service in the articles and the 7's normal service is running between Main Street - Flushing and Times Square - 42nd Street at all times. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there should be no mention made at all on WP about the (7) weekend GO's. It's happened before, similar GO's have happened on other lines, and were not included in articles. The latest timetable still contains weekend service. The 7 closure gets more media attention than other long term weekend closures, but I don't think its justified. However, the station closure should be included. There is plenty of precedent for including station closures (Dyckman St is a good example) and the PDF timetables reflect that. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Acps110 said. The construction happening in the MTA NYC's subway system MUST be mention in the article and later removed it into the "History" section of the line articles where the trains uses. Sorry, Ranger but I disagree with pretty much everything you said. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, after reading what you said, I agree with you now and fully understand. :) However, after the construction is done, then we can revert it saying the 7 operates to Manhattan at all times. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's okay to mention the reconstruction after those projects are finished. We don't necessarily have to have whole paragraphs and sections on them, but they play a part in the histories of the stations. Hey. Damen (CTA Brown Line station) was among the Chicago L stations that were shown as being closed for reconstruction, and they used to use a highway construction sign in the infobox(I think it was File:MUTCD W21-1a.svg, but I forget). ----DanTD (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Transit Museum Archives

Has anybody ever used the New York Transit Museum's Archive Research Guides for information on old lines and stations, especially the old Els? With so many articles loaded with citation needed tags, it would probably be a good idea, and if I could get back up to the Tri-State area, I'd put this on my to-do list. ----DanTD (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Culver Line = LIRR West Brighton Beach branch

For years I've seen a redlink in the {{Long Island Rail Road}} template for the West Brighton Beach Division, and this article as well as others has convinced me that the Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad became both the Culver Line and the West Brighton Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road. Before I take the action I want, can anybody give me one reason I shouldn't redirect the West Brighton Beach Division redlink to the IND Culver Line article? ----DanTD (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Station succession on the BMT Jamaica Line

The station succession on the BMT Jamaica Line has been changed. An IP came through and added a bunch of duplicate info to the infoboxes which I reverted, which he then escalated into an edit war. Why must the BMT Jamaica line show this duplicate info? This is incredibly confusing to me, a railfan; which makes me wonder how much MORE confusing it must be to the general ridership.

It seems to be pure WP:FANCRUFT to be arguing about the railroad vs. service direction. Why would the regular ridership care? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this topic here and here. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see more confusion with the station successions on the infoboxes of Delancey Street - Essex Street and Myrtle Avenue, both of which show the M train with both of its successions in the same direction. This is practically impossible being that a train can only go in one direction at a time. Either it is going north or south and east or west. I am sure if a rider at Essex Street were told to take a "northbound" M train, they would assume it means the one to Forest Hills - 71st Avenue, not Middle Village - Metropolitan Avenue. If a rider at Myrtle Avenue were told to take a "southbound" M train, they would assume one to Middle Village, not Manhattan. In terms of direction, the successions on the infoboxes of all stations from Marcy Avenue to Flushing Avenue is not 100% accurate and we want to make it that way. We have to choose either railroad direction or service direction for the successions and as discussed here, there are pros and cons with both choices. Generally, though, we prefer to use service direction because that is what the MTA goes by. Very few people know or even care about the railroad directions for their lines. Because the J and M trains operate in opposite service directions, however, putting the duplicate info on some the stations' infoboxes is the only way the directional successions can be 100% accurate. Regular ridership would care about the directional issue because the words "northbound" and "southbound" are used a lot in the subway system. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care whether we follow railroad or service direction, and I don't think it particularly matters either way. The problem is, the current order is completely wrong with regards to both! The M is consistent- Railroad and Service directions are North being Forest Hills, and South being Metropolitan Avenue. The J is where the discrepancy lies, as there is a change in railroad direction at Chambers Street. A "Service North"-bound J from Chambers to Jamaica Center is travelling railroad south. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To summarize myself, I recognize that there are good points for either side, but keeping the current set up satisfies neither side and is simply wrong. Would anyone object to me reverting to the previous setup tomorrow? If you wish to follow railroad direction over service direction, I have no issue with such, but that is a substantially large editing endeavor.(flipping the direction of every J train station from Chambers to Jamaica Center... Yikes!)67.247.23.150 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The J is not the problem, the J runs from Broad Street in the south northbound to Jamaica Center; The M is the problem. When the M was re-routed in 2010, the SIMPLE solution was to have both the M and the J traveling in the same direction in the BMT Eastern Division (Queens-bound was north) and at Essex, the next south station was Broadway-Lafayette Street for the M. Once at Broadway-Lafayette Street, the Sixth Avenue line station succession was picked up. This is much closer to compass-direction than the fancrufty railroad or service direction. Also, I've never heard an announcement for a northbound or southbound train. Trains are always described as either Borough-bound or terminal-bound. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The M is not a problem at all. A train from Metropolitan avenue to Forest Hills is running railroad north and service north the entire way. Prior to its move to 6th avenue, the M had the same problem as the J, which is that it switches railroad direction in the middle of the route, at the south end of Chambers St. Station. The current organization does not even make sense with regards to compass direction. The J runs east-west, and Marcy is further north than Myrtle! (In fact Broad is further north than Jamaica Center!) Marcy is railroad north, compass north (although mostly east), and (for one of the two services) service north of Myrtle. You are correct in that such is not used for announcements, I am not sure why that was brought up67.247.23.150 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I bought up the issue of "northbound" and "southbound" because they are used in the timetables. Each service is designated a "northbound" or "southbound" direction and according to the timetables, a J train going to Jamaica Center is considered "northbound" while an M train going to Metropolitan Avenue is considered "southbound." Before June 2010, both the J and M trains operated in a service direction that is opposite from the railroad direction of the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Lines. However, since they operated in the same service direction with each other (i.e. a Metropolitan Avenue-bound M train was considered "northbound"), there was no problem with the station successions. I wonder now if the IND Queens Boulevard Line will have the same problem being that trains going "northbound" there actually travel in the south-southeast direction like the Jamaica Line (in fact, World Trade Center and Queens Plaza are more to the north than Jamaica Center - Parsons/Archer and Jamaica - 179th Street). As stated before, service direction is generally preferred for station successions because that is what the MTA goes by. No matter which choice we make (railroad direction, service direction, or compass direction), it will not be to everyone's liking, whether because it is not completely accurate or causes confusion to some. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

None of what you said is wrong, but with regards to the origin of this discussion, the fact remains that the M is running compass north, railroad north, and service north, from Myrtle to Marcy. There is nothing south about it!67.247.23.150 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it back as there has not been any response disagreeing with the point that the M is fully consistant. Furthermore, nothing has changed since the past agreement. If you want to change it to follow railroad direction, we can discuss it further, but there is no justification at all for it being the current way. Perhaps if you have a problem with the way it is now, you can make a template for the eastern division which takes north and south out of the equation.(Substituting Manhattan and Queens Bound for North and South) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.23.150 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hold on! That's not the way WP:BRD works. You have not suggested any compromise, just "my version is better than your's." Just because someone hasn't responded to the discussion in ONE DAY, doesn't mean that the discussion is over and you can just impose your chosen version at will. (And as an aside, I did say that the M was one that was wrong above, but you chose not to hear that.) I'm working on a compromise idea, but I haven't had the time to mock it up yet. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have suggested a compromise. The compromise is what was agreed to by I believe 6 wikipedians who came up with the format you keep reverting. There was a discussion, we made a decision that we should follow either railroad direction or service direction. You keep on reverting to the previously existing setup which is wrong by ANY measure of direction. An M running from Myrtle to Essex is A. Running railroad north. B. Running roughly west northwest by the compass, and C. Considered northbound by the MTA on schedules, both internal and those released to the public. I fail to see how I am the one editwarring by reverting to what has been decided by a GROUP CONSENSUS, from something which is simply factually and citeably wrong in EVERY possible way. Claiming the section of the M from Myrtle to Essex is North to South is as incorrect as having the section of the M from W4th to 47/50th claim it is North to South. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you reverted the edits way too soon 67.247.23.150. One day is certainly not enough to weigh in on a discussion. No one except you, me and Acps110 have said anything about this issue. I suggest you give it at least another week for Acps110 to work on and present his idea. Despite his stubborness, he is a highly respectable member of this project. I personally do not like the current station succesions of all stations between Essex Street and Myrtle Avenue because it is clearly not entirely correct, but it looks like it will have to do for now being that railroad direction and service directions would cause too much confusion (the former is due to the J train's opposite service direction while the latter results in duplicate information). The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem is not that the current format is not entirely correct- My problem is that it is ENTIRELY INCORRECT with regards to the M(Which I believe you understand)! I also realize that yourself, myself, and ACPS are so far the only people who have weighed in right now. However, other people have weighed in in the past, and we were previously entirely in agreement that the current format is simply wrong. Perhaps I am missing something, but what strikes me as odd here is that when there was a preexisting consensus, one which can be cited to ANY of multiple possible sources, a single user can simply come in and change it without taking into account anything which has previously been discussed, contrary to what every possible source says, and claim that their version is what should be followed without backing it up in any way.67.247.23.150 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I will still wait to revert, but nothing has been done yet to correct this issue. I still don't see why there is any reason to keep the current pages the way they are, as they are wholly incorrect, and I don't see any disagreement with it besides an unsubstantiated "The J is not a problem, the M is" statement. In the prior discussion, we came up with two possible solutions. Nobody suggested keeping the wholly wrong status quo. Why can neither of these solutions be used, while the previous unilaterally wrong layout remains?67.247.23.150 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On another note, to add to the prior discussions, while I initially supported using railroad directions for this, as that is the preexisting policy for such boxes, I think The Legendary Ranger's solution following service directions is ideal. Why? 1- Because the J's railroad direction flips at Chambers Street, it would certainly be messy there(and it was messy when I first made the edit). 2- Because the only public idea of direction is what is released in the timetable. While a J is technically running southbound from Chambers Street to Jamaica Center, the timetable calls it northbound, So I think the version I was reverting to is the best because it is less "FANKRUFT". Either way, It can't possibly get more FANKRUFT than the way it is, following the directions that the M service used over a year ago, which neither railroad, nor current service, nor compass agree with.67.247.23.150 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on the fix for this, on this mockup. I'm still working out the S-line templates. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the effort to do such. I assume you are referring to the Knickerbocker setup. I can't speak for anyone else, but it looks good to me, as long as you don't have the M train say its going the wrong direction. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've finished the updates to the mockup. Please check my work, then we'll do away with the confusing north and south. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This form of displaying station succession is much more readable and aesthetic than the current one. However, now the problem is the issue of north and south, not aesthetics or readability. So, why not to write "Preceding station / Following station" instead of "Next north / Next south" in the current infobox? This would save a lot of work... Vcohen (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Either solution works for me. Vcohen's idea sounds easier and would be more consistent throughout NYCS, but ACPS's solution works well and would be more in line with what is seen elsewhere on wikipedia.67.247.23.150 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Turned out nicely! Thanks for putting in the work there. I'm going through and putting east and west in the text where such makes sense to avoid any railroad direction related confusion. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Line" capitalized?

Why do we capitalize "Line" in things like "Eighth Avenue Line", instead of saying "Eighth Avenue line" like most sources? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Line" is part of the line's full name, like how "Street" and "Avenue" are capitalized in street names. The full name for the line in your example is "IND Eighth Avenue Line." Book sources are not always reliable, especially if the authors and publishers have no knowledge of the New York City Subway The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If "Line" is part of the full proper name, wouldn't we expect to find evidence of that in sources? When you look in Google books, the ones that capitalize line in "IND Eighth Avenue Line" are mostly the wiki-mirror books; most other books don't—even books by, for, and about New Yorkers. Are you saying that most books are not realiable sources if they don't capitalize like this corner of Wikipedia does? Even the mta.info site (the operators of the New York City subway) doesn't ever use the "full name" as you call it, and has a mix of capitalization on "Eighth Avenue line" and other such lines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The full line names are proper nouns. And they do exist; see the PS comment I made in my first response below the first section break in the top discussion of this page for where they are used. The full names are kinda obscure, being mostly internal designations (which is why they aren't seen much on the MTA site; they usually use the service letters/numbers, which are different), but they remain the lines' proper names.

The sources do exist. They're based on technical documents, such as track maps and tunnel diagrams. The sources that follow those documents are indeed higher quality (because of the care they take) than ones that don't follow proper technical usage. As a technical field, railroad coverage should use the proper technical formatting, for reasons of accuracy and completeness.

It's an occasional issue with railroads, where the proper name of a line are sometimes obscured by the service name, or by less formal usage. See a recent discussion I had at Talk:Atlantic Branch for a similar case. Such is the case here, where "Eight Avenue line" is an informal usage to describe the line that runs under Eighth Avenue, which happens to have the proper name of "Eighth Avenue Line". oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. What are the sources you refer to? I don't see anything about that in your previous comments. Or do you mean you found these names on signs in the stations? That wouldn't imply anything about them being proper names, would it? Or sourced? Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. The sources I'm referring to are employee timetables, which I've seen at various local train memorabilia shows. Sadly, I wouldn't know how to phrase such documents into a citation. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New template created

I have created a new template, {{NYCS trains}}.

The problem it solves is following. We have dozens of templates for lines and their parts, each one of them allows us to change a list of services and get it updated in many articles. The only thing that doesn't update is the word "train" or "trains" after the template. If the number of services in a template changes from many to one, we need to check all the articles and manually change "trains" to "train" (or vice versa).

The new template calls one of line templates and adds "train" or "trains" after it.

{{NYCS Sixth}} gives B, D, F, <F>, and M
{{NYCS Sea Beach}} gives N and W
{{NYCS trains|Sixth}} gives B, D, F, <F>, and M trains
{{NYCS trains|Sea Beach}} gives N and W trains

The syntax of the template is designed to minimize the work on applying it. All we need to do is insert the symbols "trains|" after "NYCS " (and delete the word "train" or "trains", of course). Vcohen (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oooo, I like it! Nice work; I'll start using that immediately. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work. I tried using on several pages for transfers with "|time=show" and it doesn't! Can you fix, A C E trains? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done

I didn't think that it was in use with both "trains" and "time=". Vcohen (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you make a few further tweeks? When used with {{NYCS none}}, it outputs "no regular service trains" and when used with {{NYCS closed}}, it outputs "closed for construction trains" – These usages should omit the word "trains". Also, used with {{NYCS Franklin}} or {{NYCS 42nd}}, it outputs "S trains" instead of "S train." Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the QA, I will fix it. Vcohen (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done (hopefully). Vcohen (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between {{NYCS trains|Sea Beach|time=nolink}} and {{NYCS trains|Sea Beach|time=nolinkatall}}? Both seem to output the same thing. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea of my template is to check if the template it calls returns one service or several ones. I check it by calling the template with time=nolink and looking for a space in its returned value. If I find a space then I know that I have to say "trains". The problem begins when the service is the S. In this case the template I call passes the link parameter to {{NYCS time 2}} and returns me a string with a space and parentheses with the link text inside (such as S (Franklin Avenue Shuttle)), instead of a single S. To avoid it, I've added the option of time=nolinkatall that ignores the link value and returns the service designation only, without the space and the parentheses. Vcohen (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a new parameter. If the second parameter (after the called template name) equals to "bold", the train list is shown in bold.

{{NYCS trains|Sixth}} gives B, D, F, <F>, and M trains
{{NYCS trains|Sea Beach}} gives N and W trains
{{NYCS trains|Sixth|bold}} gives B, D, F, <F>, and M trains
{{NYCS trains|Sea Beach|bold}} gives N and W trains

It also works with templates that return plain text, not links to service articles:

{{NYCS trains|Second}} gives N, Q, and R trains
{{NYCS trains|Second|bold}} gives N, Q, and R trains

Vcohen (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

NYCS Subway car @ Seashore Trolley Museum

Simple question; What kind of subway car is this, and can it be added to a subway car article that doesn't have an image yet?----DanTD (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this page on nycsubway.org, that's either R4 800 or R7 1440. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox NYCS

I need some programming help with three things in {{Infobox NYCS}}.

I recently added the trunk line colors to the line parameter. Can someone cleanup my hard coding to allow the trunk line colors to be added any time they are encountered? I had to add the hard coding to accommodate places where a trunk line and non-trunk line serve the same station, such as 145th Street (IND Concourse Line), Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street, etc.

Also, I removed the next north and south station parameters from several stations (example, 66th Street – Lincoln Center) where they duplicated the next north and south ADA stations. There is a switch that adds a horizontal rule if next north or south ADA is present, to separate them from the next north or south stations. Can anyone fix this switch to add the horizontal rule if both north and south and north ADA and south ADA are present, but remove it if only north and south ADA are present?

DanTD recently embedded National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) info into infoboxes. However, it embeds in the wrong place, it splits up the Station succession and Station service legend, see Astor Place. Can the station service legend be moved out of the footer and then move the NRHP info down below it? So, the order will be, Station succession, Station service legend, then NRHP? (Please also verify that the change works with the "type=complex" option.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Vcohen posted these questions to the template's talk page, which have somehow been missed...

My knowledge is not enough, so I don't want to edit this template myself, but I want to make some improvements:

1. Replace

 | data11   = {{{structure|}}}

with

 | data11    = {{ #switch: {{{structure|}}}
    | Open-cut = [[Cut (earthmoving)|Open-cut]]
    | Elevated = [[Elevated railway|Elevated]]
    | Embankment = [[Embankment (transportation)|Embankment]]
    | Shallow column = [[Shallow column station|Shallow column]]
    | Single-vault = [[Single-vault station|Single-vault]]
    | #default = {{{structure|}}}
  }}

2. Add a support for a new parameter called 'note'. I want to use it here and here to say:

| note = The MTA defines this platform set as two separate stations

Is there anybody going to perform this work? Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

3 & 4. Two new parameters called 'layout' and 'map', similar to the 'image' parameter. I am preparing some graphic files to show station layouts (tracks and platforms) and their locations relative to the whole system, and I want them at the bottom of the infobox. Vcohen (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added two options to the 'structure' list: 'Shallow column' and 'Single-vault'. These are the two most common types of underground stations in the NYCS, both having articles here, whereas just 'Underground' is not a structure at all. Vcohen (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the 'map' parameter. Vcohen (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I support adding the proposed switch to the structure section, with several modifications.
- | Shallow column = Underground [[Shallow column station|Shallow column]]
- | Deep column = Underground [[Deep column station|Deep column]]
- | Single-vault = Underground [[Single-vault station|Single-vault]]
I oppose question two. That is trivial WP:FANCRUFT and shouldn't be included in an infobox.
I support adding a "schematic" parameter to be used for a schematic layout of the station. A picture is worth a thousand words, and most station articles already include a textual description of the layout.
I oppose a map added to each infobox for its relative position in the system, due to the large size of the system and the small size of a thumbnail map in an infobox. A thumbnail would be unreadable. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else put those NRHP parameters there before me, but I forgot who did them. ----DanTD (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like them better embeded into the infobox instead of a separate infobox. I would just like the Station succession and station service legend together. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad. I'd like to see if and how we can merge the infoboxes of City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) and Morris Park (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Speaking of IRT Dyre Avenue Line stations, we should populate the individual commons category images of those stations, along with a few others, but that's a discussion for another thread. ----DanTD (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like any of the proposed additions. That's too much detail in the structure section; infoboxes are supposed to be complimentary to, not supplant the article. The second idea is quite trivial. The maps are goin to be illegible, because of the size of the system. The schematic idea is like the structure parameter, too much detail for an infobox. If a schematic is warranted, it should be in the article body, not the infobox. And frankly, the articles that need them the most (station complexes) are the ones where it's going to be the worst off. I'm also down on the color blocks for the trunk lines in the infobox. As plain color blocks are already used for the services, it's only got potential to confuse unfamiliar readers. While the colors may be assigned to a service based on their trunk line, the trunk lines don't actually have colors. oknazevad (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the color boxes attached to the trunk lines as a confusion for new readers, I see it as being consistent. Even though the lines don't have colors, the trunk line colors have been the de facto standard since 1979. The service bullets are generated from the trunk line colors. Unfortunately, NYCS does not effectively enforce this consistently. The new FASTRACK service map for the Sixth Ave line is a mess, displaying the re-routed D and F trains in the wrong color as well as the Brooklyn-side of the Split-D terminating at Whitehall St also in the wrong color. The trains don't have the capability to change colors either. If they changed the map with the re-routes, they could say more simply, no orange D and F service, blue D and F service replaces; Connect with yellow D at Jay Street – Metrotech for continued service to Brooklyn. With NYCS not enforcing using their own color system, they are creating more confusion in the process. Wikipedia exists to document things as they are, de facto or otherwise, thus the addition of trunk line colors. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Acps110 for copying my questions. I would like to make some explanations.

It took me a pretty long time to find out why the number of stations mentioned in almost every article is 468 while simple counting gives only 466. The idea is to have mercy on the reader and mark the two stations that have to be counted twice.
My images will be published and discussed on my user page, they are not ready right now, but I want to demonstrate what it is. I don't think that they are unreadable.

Vcohen (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, I think those maps are too schematic and lack enough context to be useful to someone not already familiar with the system. And, again, I think trying to put every detail of a station in the infobox is a bad idea. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you can see them in color. Vcohen (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some more context can be added by showing borough boundaries and/or something else (tell me what). Vcohen (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean every station article is going to get a map now? I can live with just the station complexes maybe, but if anything it would make more sense if the lines and services had maps (Yes, I know that there are plenty of them that already do). And what about the lines that don't have color bars yet, like the IND Queens Boulevard Line? ----DanTD (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maps for lines and services are planned too and will be discussed later. I don't want to talk about them in context of {{Infobox NYCS}}. Meanwhile you can see them here and here (it isn't the final version).

IND Queens Boulevard Line is shown in white. I show in white each line (or part of it) that has services of several different colors. Vcohen (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Because when I look at the lead infoboxes for Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street (New York City Subway), Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway), and what not, the only color bars I see are for the IRT Flushing Line(Shouldn't BMT Astoria Line be in yellow?). With Court Square (New York City Subway) at least you also have the addition of the IND Crosstown Line color bar. ----DanTD (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan, the Astoria and Queens Boulevard lines are not trunk lines. In your example, the Flushing and Crosstown lines are trunk lines. That's where the colors come from. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see anything wrong on my maps? The colors are for lines, not for stations. The yellow line running northwards from Queensboro Plaza is Astoria Line, the lime green line running southwards from it (yes, I know that they are not connected) is Crosstown Line. Vcohen (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you put the colors there, and they seem okay to me. ----DanTD (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Idea: I can make a link from this map to a real full map (either this or this) rather than to the zoom of the same image. Vcohen (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

R46 and Close Paraphrasing

I don't have the time to rewrite the section myself like I'd like to, but R46 (New York City Subway car) for the Rockwell / Pullman Standard fiasco tends to be mostly words just reorganized and changed in places from NYCSubway.org's 70s page. IF someone might be able to do me a favor and rewrite what's there or expand it, I'd be appreciative. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing info

Re Template talk:NYCS rolling stock#Truck centers, What is the distance between truck pivot centers? Peter Horn User talk 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The datasheets for every model are at http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/currentfleet.html and http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/retiredfleet.html. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

While updating links to Barclays Center...

When a link describes a historical subject, should I still change it to Barclays Center or use a redirect? Also, what should I do with its displayed text, after the pipe, should I change it to Barclays Center or leave as is? Vcohen (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update the link to the new title, but leave the piped text as the old title. For example, [[Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (IRT Eastern Parkway Line)|Atlantic Avenue]]. A similar situation is that V trains formerly terminated at Lower East Side – Second Avenue but the station is now named Second Avenue. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Station structure

Ladies & gentlemen,

I'm trying to understand the subject of station structure, in order to fix the Structure field in the infoboxes of the underground stations. The current value, Underground, only means that a station is below the ground level, it doesn't reflect its real structure. The question is what are the options of an underground station structure.

In Russia, where I lived until 20 years ago, the common classification of underground stations goes approximately like this:

I know that in the NYCS there are single-vault stations and no pylon stations and "horizontal elevators". The problem is to distinguish between shallow and deep column stations. I see column stations without any visible difference, located at different depths. Here are some examples of deep stations:

These stations are deep, but they don't belong to the deep column station type (partly because the first deep column station in the world was built in 1938 in Moscow and some of the discussed stations opened much before 1938). On the talk pages of the Shallow column station and Deep column station articles somebody wrote 5 years ago that the two articles were translation from Russian (I think so too) and it would be better to merge them together to make them less Russian-centered. I understand that there exists a just column station type, but I can't find any source that describes it.

So, what type are these stations? Vcohen (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This classification system is little discussed in connection with NYC. Except for the single vault example, I think these stations are shallow; ie with floors less than about 15m (50ft) below grade and above water level, in tunnels built by cut and cover or similar methods. Deep stations in bored tunnels seldom present their arched ceilings to the photographer, though as in this Brooklyn example, a deep station with columns typically shows the curved wall that resists the pressure of ground water. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I have two questions.

The first of these three examples is the lower level of 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line). It's situated below a mezzanine and two other stations, one of them being obviously deep-bored (see the image). It can't be built by cut and cover.
If, as you say, "deep stations in bored tunnels seldom present their arched ceilings to the photographer", how can I identify deep stations? Is there any list of them? Vcohen (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my inattention; last night's Wikimedia New York meeting was the last event of a busy week and the new less eventful week should allow me to keep up with correspondence. I don't know of a list of station depths and haven't studied the subway system systematically. I have merely used about half the underground stations including most of the Manhattan ones in the past fifty years and sometimes am able to recall climbing the stairs, thus indicating depth.

Yes, the BMT tunnel is deep but the question of the depth of the IRT platforms above it is one that escapes my fading memory. A week and a half ago, victim of a flat tire in southeastern Yonkers, I carried my bicycle from the E86th Street southbound platform to the street, and vaguely recall that the ceiling was not many yards below the street but that's my nearest possibly relevant datum for a line I seldom use.

As for the arched ceiling above the BMT platform, I hazard a guess that it was made to carry the heavy soil load above it. Presumably the arch over the tracks would be very prominent, if it were exposed, but I don't remember seeing it when changing trains there, last year. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll think about measuring depths by carrying bicycles on stairs... Vcohen (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are two images of the ceiling above the tracks on the lower level of 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line):

here it looks flat
here (at 3:00) it looks rounded

It's most likely that I have to find all stations on Youtube... Vcohen (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is some info. This book was published in 1904. It only covers a small part of stations, but it still lists more types than I knew before. Vcohen (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Update naming convention?

(Moved discussion from subpage that no one watches) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The "naming convention" section currently reads "For any name that requires an en dash, if there is a space between one or both of the elements, the en dash is spaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline." This was once what the MOS called for; however, it (MOS:DASH) was changed in mid-2011 to mandate that en dashes that are part of compounds should be unspaced. When the MOS conflicts with any local project guidelines, the former takes precedence, so this page should be changed to reflect the change in the MOS. Otherwise, it's offering guidance that's misleading at best and incorrect at worst. – T M F 23:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing, and saw you beat me to it. I'll update it since nobody has objected. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's decided to perform this change, it will be a good chance to perform another one. The naming convention prescribes to use a slash in names of complexes only, but we have at least 4 single stations with a slash. Vcohen (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, the Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) article needs to get back its spaces. Vcohen (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) will be renamed Atlantic Avenue / Pacific Street (New York City Subway), just because it's a complex, even though the former is the proper name and not the latter? ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the current naming convention needs a more thorough development. I don't suggest to do it now. The 4 stations I mentioned are the simplest cases that can be easily fixed. Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall / Chambers Street (New York City Subway) needs its spaces back, in case that we decide to rollback the changes. Vcohen (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As I see, Barclays Center has been renamed with the spaces, so this is probably the chosen way. Vcohen (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion has gone stale, clearly there is no consensus to change the naming convention and rename hundreds of articles. I'm going to move the two non-conforming articles back to their titles as the naming convention prescribes. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus here does not matter in the face of project policy (which the MOS is). This cannot stand. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The MOS is not a policy, it is a style guideline. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The guideline change to agree with MOS:DASH stood for a month without objection. Your revert made the guideline statement factually incorrect. If you want to propose an exception to what the MOS says, that can be entertained here. As to whether a lot of pages need to be moved, that's not a big deal; there are always thousands of things waiting to be fixed, and when someone gets motivated to work on them, or to make a bot, to conform better to guidelines, they'll get fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. The MOS is not a policy. The naming convention is the result of consensus, so there is no way for it to be "factually incorrect." My reversion was to revert it back to the current consensus of a spaced endashes per this discussion as well as this move [10] that happened while the discussion was originally taking place. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm confused. I didn't say it's policy. Your edit changed it to read: "For any name that requires an en dash, if there is a space between one or both of the elements, the en dash is spaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline." This is a factual error, since the guideline WP:MOSDASH says the en dash should be unspaced. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have also opened a discussion at ANI regarding the move warring. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the permanent link. Vcohen (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

New template

I have created a new template, {{NYCS const}}.

It's intended to concentrate useful pieces of text in one place and update them only once when the reality changes. As of now, it supports two types of data, defined by the first parameter.

1. If the first parameter is color, the template returns the name of the corresponding color, as it appears in trunk line tables here and here, with a link to an article about the color. The returned color name will be typically used in articles about lines and services, where a trunk line color is mentioned. The second parameter recognizes the same ways of defining a color as the {{NYCS color}} template does.

{{NYCS const|color|orange}} returns orange
{{NYCS const|color|yellow}} returns yellow

2. If the first parameter is number, the template returns the number of stations. Meanwhile, there are only two options. The numbers of lines and services can be added.

{{NYCS const|number|total}} returns 472
{{NYCS const|number|intl}} returns 423

3. I can move to the template other pieces of text that are used more than once, such as the trunk line table or the sentence Lines with colors next to them are trunk lines; trunk lines determine the color of New York City Subway service bullets, except shuttles which are dark gray (I didn't take it because its occurrences slightly differ from each other).

I am going to apply this template. Is it OK? Vcohen (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In line infoboxes, where the statement sounds like The services have been colored xxx since 1979, I leave the original color name, without the template. I suppose that only the general color has existed since 1979, such as blue or red, while the exact hue, such as vivid blue or tomato red, has been added later. Vcohen (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done (in the first approximation). Vcohen (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I need to restore two templates

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am trying to build a table describing the configuration of DeKalb Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) and its services. Suddenly I discovered that two of the templates I need had been deleted. The templates are {{NYCS DeKalb tunnel}} and {{NYCS DeKalb bridge}}, and this is the discussion that preceded the deletion of the templates. Does anybody know how I can proceed? My table now looks like this:

North of the station
BMT Broadway Line local N (late nights) R (all except late nights)	BMT Broadway Line express N (all except late nights) Q (all times)	IND Sixth Avenue Line express B (weekdays during the day) D (all times)
Montague Street Tunnel	Manhattan Bridge south	Manhattan Bridge north
tunnel tracks (BMT Fourth Avenue Line)	bridge tracks

In the station
center tracks (bypass) D (all except late nights) N (all except late nights)	inner platform tracks N (late nights) R (all times) W (limited rush hour service only)	outermost tracks B (weekdays during the day) D (late nights) Q (all times)

South of the station
BMT Fourth Avenue Line express D (all except late nights) N (all except late nights)	BMT Fourth Avenue Line local D (late nights) N (late nights) R (all times) W (limited rush hour service only)	BMT Brighton Line B (weekday rush hours, middays and early evenings) Q (all times)

Vcohen (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I recreated them. we should ask the deleting admin for a history merge though. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I could do it myself, I don't know why I didn't... Vcohen (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Times in templates

Ladies and gentlemen, that's me again.

Some templates say the B train operates until 9:30 p.m., while other templates say it operates until 11:00 p.m.

{{NYCS Manhattan Bridge north}}	{{NYCS Brighton north}}
B (weekdays during the day) D (all times)	B (weekday rush hours, middays and early evenings) Q (all times)

According to the timetable, the last B train departs from its terminal at 10:00 p.m. and arrives to the second terminal at 11:00 p.m.

It means that, for example, the last B train passes the DeKalb Ave station (whose article I recently edited) at about 10:45 p.m. southbound and about 10:20 p.m. northbound, i.e. both kinds of templates are wrong. What is the right way to edit them? Vcohen (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Following this edit, I changed the rest to 11:00. Vcohen (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Two NRHP infoboxes in one NYCS infobox; What's the secret?

Station articles such as 72nd Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) and Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway)(I hate that name), have two National Register of Historic Places infoboxes embedded into the New York City Subway ones. I swiped the 72nd Street Seventh Avenue Line infobox to make the one for Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street, but I have to ask how that was done, because I'm planning to do something similar to a station outside of the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. It's the Fullerton Transportation Center, an Amtrak/SoCal Metrolink Station in Fullerton, California, and as you can see by my sandbox, I'm having nothing but trouble putting all three infoboxes in one. So I'd like to know how it was done for 72nd Street station, and whether it can be done for that station in Fullerton. ----DanTD (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Vcohen (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I added a few parameters, and now all I need is the map. I'm using the Southern California map for this. ----DanTD (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You asked for help with embedding the infoboxes, and that's what I did. I didn't know you had problems with parameters.

Vcohen (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I appreciate your help. I had no problems with the other parameters, but now it's just the map. I just tried reviving the old map in the old location, but it didn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just decided I was going to add it without the map. I've just tagged the sandbox for speedy deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the map appeared. What is the problem with the map? Vcohen (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just couldn't put it in the new version of the infobox. If you can fix this, I'll take it remove the speedy deletion tag, unless it's too late. ----DanTD (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've copied it to my sandbox, it's OK. Vcohen (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a working version with the map before the NRHP infoboxes. Is it good enough? Vcohen (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll just add the other parameters I've already added to the existing infobox, and I'll be done. ----DanTD (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, User:Vcohen. Someday maybe this can be a new standard with NRHP infoboxes. ----DanTD (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox Station | style=Amtrak | name=Fullerton | image=Fullerton Station.jpg | image_caption= | address='''Santa Fe Depot:''' 120 East Santa Fe Avenue Fullerton, CA 92832 '''Union Pacific Depot:''' 110 East Santa Fe Avenue Fullerton, CA 92832 | coordinates={{coord|33.868612|-117.9223|region:US_type:railwaystation|display=title,inline}} | line='''Amtrak'''{{rail color box|system=Amtrak|line=Pacific Surfliner}}{{rail color box|system=Amtrak|line=Southwest Chief}}'''Metrolink'''{{rail color box|system=SCAX|line=91}}{{rail color box|system=SCAX|line=Orange County}} | code=FUL | platform=2 [[side platform]]s | tracks=3 | parking= 250 spaces | bicycle= | owned= | opened=1923(UP) 1930(AT&SF) | rebuilt=1993 | ADA=Yes | passengers=436,383<ref>{{cite web | title=Fullerton, CA (FUL)|publisher=Great American Stations|url=http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/FUL|accessdate=November 18, 2011}}</ref> | pass_year=2011 | pass_percent=6 | pass_system=Amtrak | services= {{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Pacific Surfliner|previous=Los Angeles|next=Anaheim}} {{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Southwest Chief|previous=Los Angeles|next=Riverside}} {{s-rail-next|title=SCAX}} {{s-line|system=SCAX|line=91|previous=Buena Park|next=West Corona|rows1=2}} {{s-line|system=SCAX|line=Orange County|previous=Buena Park|next=Anaheim|hide1=true}} {{s-note|text=Former services}} {{s-rail-next|title=ATSF}} {{s-line|system=ATSF|line=main|previous=Los Angeles|next=Placentia|rows1=3|rowsmid=2|notemid=Via [[Fullerton, California|Fullerton]], [[Riverside, California|Riverside]]}} {{s-line|system=ATSF|line=main|previous=Los Angeles|next=Corona|hide1=yes|hidemid=yes|note2='''Major stations'''}} {{s-line|system=ATSF|line=Surf Line|previous=Los Angeles|next=Anaheim|hide1=yes}} | map_locator={{Location map | Los Angeles | lat = 33.8686 | long = -117.9223 | float = center | caption = | alt = Location of the Fullerton Train Station. }} {{Infobox NRHP | embed = yes | name = Santa Fe Railway Passenger and Freight Depot (Fullerton, California) | location= 140 East Santa Fe Avenue, [[Fullerton, California]] | locmapin = Los Angeles | built = 1930 | architect OR builder = Herbert,E.J. | architecture = Mission/spanish Revival | added = February 5, 1992 | area = {{convert|1|acre}} | governing_body = Local | refnum = 91002031<ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2010a}}</ref> }} {{Infobox NRHP | embed = yes | name = Fullerton Union Pacific Depot | location= 100 East Santa Fe Avenue, [[Fullerton, California]] | built = 1923 | architect OR builder = Union Pacific Railroad | architecture = Mission/spanish Revival | added = October 12, 1983 | area = {{convert|0.8|acre}} | governing_body = Private | refnum = 83003551<ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2010a}}</ref> }} }}

I need somebody that knows to work with .svg files

There are some .svg maps that once had a certain problem: the text didn't display properly, the word Brooklyn looked like Bookyn and so on. Almost all of them have been fixed by a process called "text to path". Here is an example, see the File history section. There is one map that has not been fixed, and I need it now. Can anybody edit and re-upload it? Vcohen (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Vcohen (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, it still reads Bookyn... Vcohen (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here...can you provide an example? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The same link. Bookyn, Manhahn, and Bonx. Vcohen (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

PANYNJ Roling Stock

I've been considering a new commons category for all the trains of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and yes, it would include both PATH, and the two AirTrains. So my question; is this an old St. Louis Car Company PA-2? ----DanTD (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The car numbers are actually listed on the main PATH article under former rolling stock. Most of the time I dislike that, as Wikipedia is not a railspotters guide, but it can be useful sometimes. oknazevad (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What did he mean?

Somebody came and inserted one sentence into 11 articles: "...emergency exits from same exists on both platforms." I know that exits exist, not exists, but I don't catch the meaning. What is "exits from same"? Is it correct? Vcohen (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe he is trying to say that there are emergency exits from the lower level tunnels that lead to the upper level stations' platforms or street level. I personally do not think this is important to mention because these exits are not visible to most commuters, so they probably do not care about them. The additions are also unsourced and the MTA would never reveal the locations of emergency exits for safety and security reasons, so in my opinion, it is just best to revert all of his edits. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Vcohen (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a bot

Hello all.

It's time to create a bot (or just an editing tool). The subject of railways invites lots of mass edits, and it's a little odd that this project doesn't have anything like this. I'm going to create one.

Right now I can think about some kinds of edits to do in articles about NYCS stations with the new tool, though in the future there will be much more.

1. The edit I have been thinking about during some months is adding station layouts and station locations to the infoboxes. I've prepared a description of this edit, you are welcome. 2. The edit that became really urgent some days ago is updating links to external sites. A typical article about a NYCS station has 4 types of links to station-by-station sites, and they are: the nycsubway.org list of stations the nycsubway.org list of artworks the subwaynut.com list of stations the mta.info list of artworks Their status, respectively, is: the nycsubway.org site has moved to a wiki-like engine and changed all its URLs Jeremiah Cox (subwaynut.com) keeps adding pages, the site now covers nearly all the stations, while only about 3/4 of the articles have links to subwaynut the mta.info site seems to have changed something, anyway some links are wrong, for example the link in the Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway) article leads to the artwork of the 71st Street (BMT West End Line) station, and so on I have reanimated the old {{NYCS ref}} template, now it can be used with all the 4 types of links, and here are examples of using it. 3. There have been some discussions about the usage of endashes and spaces in article titles, this is one of them. I really don't want to perform thousands of renames and related changes, but if we are forced to, the new tool will be very useful.

I have an MS Access database with data about articles, and a program that knows to read an article, analyze it and insert to the database, and even make an edit and display a preview or a diff. I don't programmatically save changes because I am not a bot and mustn't do it. However, if I create a bot, automatic saves will be available too.

The guidelines for creating a bot advise to start from discussing with others. This is what I'd like to do now. Vcohen (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to start by placing up for discussion whether or not linking to websites like SubwayNut or StationReporter is necessary when free images for the station exists. NYCSubway.org is a history resource as much as it is a photo resource, so it is a definite keeper. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be contested at all. Without them we wouldn't be able to prove that parts of 168th Street (BMT Jamaica Line) still exist. Jeremiah Cox still has a lot of LIRR stations to cover(I don't know what else he's missing). And can you really prove that free images exist for everything that's needed right now? ----DanTD (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's no free images the links should still stay, that I'm sure of. The article you linked to doesn't even mention Jeremiah Cox at all. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, it didn't. But there's one at Merillon Avenue (LIRR station) that does have his site(http://subwaynut.com/lirr/merillon_avenue/index.php).

On the fifth image he has this quote;

"Christmas wreaths on the platform, I didn't realize the LIRR was Christian."

I've been meaning to send him an e-mail and tell him it's more than likely the memorial wreath for the victims of the Long Island Rail Road massacre. Regarding NYCSubway.org, there's one image that has me puzzled at this link;

Mt. Kisco Station. One of three Henry Hudon Richardson-designed station buildings at consecutive stations from Chappaqua to Bedford Hills, identical except for building materials used.

Are we sure Peter Ehrlich didn't mean Henry Hobson Richardson? And do we have any additional proof he had anything to do with the designs of Chappaqua, Mount Kisco, and Bedford Hills stations? ----DanTD (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why I don't want to link to SubwayNut. It's littered with typos and some factual errors, and the pages are made simply by visting the station with little historical research. For something like Merillon Avenue, the link should stay as photo proof. I'm talking more for cases like Woodhaven Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A new problem has been discovered: the use of Wikimapia in the coordinates of stations. The new infobox (item 1 above) shows the coordinates in a consistent format and without Wikimapia. Vcohen (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody is moving our pages

A user is moving our pages. [11] [12] What can we do? Can we put a template at the top of each page saying not to move this page without discussion? Can we talk with him (I could do it myself in Russian or Hebrew, but not in English)? Vcohen (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Move them back. I'll start right now. oknazevad (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I do move every time, but I think we need a more serious solution.

By the way, there is one page more that needs a move back, but I don't want to recommence the move war that stopped by protecting the page. Vcohen (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, forgot about the moved pages of Metro-North. Vcohen (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Our" pages? Please see WP:OWN. The original page moves were correct, these pages don't need disambiguation. Earlier discussions have made it quite clear that the local consensus of project members may be to add the disambiguation, but most editors from outside the project (but general Wikipedia editors) feel that these pages don't need disambiguation (or at least not the disambiguation used by this project), and that the simple names (or generic names like X Street Station) are sufficient and more WP:MOS-compliant. The more complicated or specific disambiguation should only be used in special cases, where no or a simple disambiguation is not sufficient to distinguish the article from other existing articles on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and excuse me for my English while other participants are not here.

I said "our pages" because we take care about them. It didn't mean that we tried to own anything.

I undid these moves only because I want to see things consistent, coordinated and done after a discussion. That's what I wrote in my edit summaries.

You are here, you are ready to discuss, it's beautiful.

So, I don't think the parenthesized part is a disambiguation. It's a part of the name. It's written with parentheses rather than a comma because it's more readable, when both parts include dashes (for example, Marble Hill – 225th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line)). Vcohen (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Allright, no problem. I meant more "beware that you don't feel as if you "own" these pages" than "you are actually violating "own"". Feeling protective about pages which are part of a project is natural and good; feeling possessive would be bad. To the issue at hand: if the official or the colloquial name of the stations is not the same as the Wikipedia name, then the part between brackets is (or should be considered) a disambiguator. Sources like this (taken from the article) don't include the second part in the station name. In fact, I couldn't find any reliable sources for this station that had the Wikipedia name, they all had "Marble Hill – 225th Street" (as such, or with "Station" or "Subway Station" added). E.g. this one. Previous discussions established the same for many other stations (there may be some exceptions, certainly where confusion with different stations could happen). Fram (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This source does include the second part, but it does it in a different way. It includes route bullets instead of line names. Our (see above what "our" means) articles use line names because they are more constant. Vcohen (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's hardly the same, a station name with colour coded route numbers added is not the same as claiming that the actual station name includes the line. This project does that for convenience (but whose convenience?), not because it is the actual name of the stations. Fram (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is another source. Vcohen (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That site is also a wiki (not a reliable site), and gives different names to the stations than we do, so again: it is a convention of this project, not an official or common name. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That site uses a wiki-like engine, but is not a wiki that can be updated by everyone. You are right that the names of the NYCS stations may vary, we have a rule for this need. The common use of these stations' names adds a kind of "internal disambiguation" to all their names, including those unique that don't seem to require that. Vcohen (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And why would we do that? Why would we treat these different from all other articles on Wikipedia? Why is it necessary to have this? Why wouldn't e.g. Marble Hill – 225th Street Station be sufficient? Fram (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see two reasons.

1. We must reflect the real names of objects we describe.

2. Once in a while the NYCS stations change their names. In such a case a station may get a namesake that it had no before. If each article has its line name in the title, we ensure ourselves against future renames. (The same reason gives the answer why we don't use route letters/digits in article titles, because the routes change once in a while too.) Vcohen (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1. is true, and is a reason not to add those invented disambiguators in cases where they aren't really necessary to actually disambiguate some articles. 2. When there arises a need for a disambiguation, we add it then. We don't do this proactively, because perhaps someday it may be needed. The same can happen to nearly every other article (using "random article"), who knows whether there will be another famous Carolyn Gusoff or Deborah Rubin or Gwystyl or Mansourieh or Love Without Hope?). As for why we don't use the route letters or digits, yeah, that would be even worse and non-informational. Fram (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't understand why it's a reason not to add. Some paragraphs above there is a sentence with a bold all saying that the real names do include an "internal disambiguation".

2. The articles about NYCS stations are different in that there are hundreds of them (about a thousand including closed stations) and lots of links from article to article. Two months ago one station changed its name, and it took more than a day of manual work to update all relevant links. How much time would it take to rename all the thousand? Vcohen (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you have one unofficial site adding their own naming system to the station names, and that's the reason we should do this as well? Even though most (all?) reliable sources, both primary and secondary ones, don't use any disambiguation in the names? Finding one site which does something similar does not suddebnly make this the official or common name of these stations. As for your second reason; frankly, tough luck, this project (or some members) have for years used their own system and opposed all attempts to change it to the regular system. To keep the system now because it would be too much work to change it is not a good reason. By the way, e.g. Marble Hill – 225th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) is linked from less than 50 articles. Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway), the article you mention above, is linked from 21 articles. To change these links shouldn't take "one day of manual work" but half an hour. Fram (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Where do you see even one source that "doesn't use any disambiguation"?

2. Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway) is not linked from 21 articles. You didn't take into account numerous templates and redirects, each of them used according to certain rules.

3. Please don't forget about Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you suggest a change, you have to do it constructively. You must not say "It isn't my problem how you solve it." Vcohen (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I, and many others with me, have for years tried to get this change through, only to get stalled by arguments which mainly end in "but we don't like it" or "it's too much work". It would have been just as much work to move it to Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center Station instead of to Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway). When I move a page, I normally correct the links to it as well (redirects often get changed by bots). As for sources don't use any disambiguation (except where absolutely necessary), see e.g. [13]. Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A map is not what I need. I need a list of stations or a series of articles. Vcohen (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You can click on the map to get to individual stations. The site also has lists of stations, e.g. here or here. And our naming conventions don't ask for lists, or series of articles: sources dealing with one station count just as much. You need to show that the names you use are commonly in use, but have so far not provided any reliable source using this naming scheme. You have also not indicated why the un-disambiguated name wouldn't suffice. Fram (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've colored in red two sentences that you seem to have forgotten.

A click on this map does not bring information about one station.

A map is not a good example because it shows stations in their graphic context and doesn't need their full names.

If you want to change something, the burden of proof is on you. Vcohen (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This project wants to overule the general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The burden of proof of why this is necessary is on you, not on others. But I have provided evidence, while you haven't given me any source that uses the names this project gives to these stations. None, not a single one. I had seen the parts you now have put in red, they don't change anything. They don't use your system at all. And they don't give the official or the common names for these stations either, it is one (unofficial) website using their own system, which is not the system in use here. What is it supposed to prove? Fram (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is one more sentence in green. It's for your claim about the policies and guidelines. Do you want to replace the round parentheses with any other sign?

Yes, our system is only one of several possible and acceptable systems. But all of them use a kind of "internal disabmiguation" (it's the fourth time I'm saying it), though it's more frequently a route letter/digit than a line name. Vcohen (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not part of the name, it's a part you (the project) add to the name for some obscure reason. But it's clearly no use trying to convince one another here, I guess some RfC or massive move request will be needed to get this settled. Fram (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a positive approach. Destroy everything you don't understand. Vcohen (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you want, but don't agree with it. And I propose a different name for these articles, which is hardly "destroying" anything... Fram (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a plan for such a massive move? Can you list here (or on any other page) all the thousand titles along with their proposed new names? It's hardly 1% of all the work you are proposing to perform, so let's do it. Vcohen (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't such a list. Note that I gave such a move request as one option, an RfC being the other. But anyway, I would at first look at all hyphenated names, since these are the least likely to be needing disambiguation. Things like South Ferry – Whitehall Street, Christopher Street – Sheridan Square or Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue. Fram (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you to begin developing such a plan. Prove that your goal is to do something, not only to attack and threaten. Vcohen (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Presumption of ownership aside, Fram, that particular article that mentions the "1 and 9 Subway Line" refers to the IRT Broadway - Seventh Avenue Line. Since the "coded route numbers" you refer to aren't always on the same line, the station names include the lines. ----DanTD (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, your conclusion doesn't follow from what precedes it. Noone is disputing that that station is on that line. That doesn't mean that it should be included in our article title. It is not the name of the station, and there is no disambiguation needed at all for this (and many other) stations. It is a project-only invention/convention, not supported by reliable sources and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines on naming articles. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary; It does mean it should be included in the article title. Especially when you also consider the fact that it's used as a transfer to Marble Hill (Metro-North station). Subway stations that are on specific lines get the names of the lines included no matter what. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally Fram, you made a grave error when you insisted on renaming those Sacramento RT and MAX Light Rail station articles. Too many of the ones that are named after roads look like non-notable road articles now! ----DanTD (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist, though I don't follow it very closely, but I want to say that I agree completely with Fram in this discussion. 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)

Bkonard, check Broadway (New York City Subway), and you'll understand why Fram's attitude toward the naming convention is wrong. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that shows anything more generalized than that that particular title "Broadway Station" requires disambiguation.

They're stations for specific lines. How can you possibly not see that? ----DanTD (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well of course. But why should that ambiguity affect how other stations are titled? older ≠ wiser 13:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Because they are stations for specific subway lines. ----DanTD (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again, why should the fact that one title is ambiguous affect how articles about other stations are titled? older ≠ wiser 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again, they're for stations on the particular lines. We're not going to change them to misleading names for your benefit or anyone else's.----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again, we seem to be talking past each other. Perhaps the question is better put as why does this tiny group of project editors get to define a convention that defies wikipedia-wide standards and practices? older ≠ wiser 11:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not accept the sentence colored in green above? I don't think the parenthesized part is a disambiguation. It's a part of the name. It's written with parentheses rather than a comma because it's more readable, when both parts include dashes (for example, Marble Hill – 225th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line)). Vcohen (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no plausible evidence that any reliable source recognizes those as "names" -- they are purely and simply artificial constructs imagined by this project. FWIW, I have no problem with the use of dashes -- my concern is that the titles confusingly encode unnecesssary disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thus we are brought to the sentences colored in red above. Every time a NYCS station's name is used, it's used with a kind of "internal disambiguation" that may be either a route (or several routes) or a line. For example, on Google Maps these stations are shown with route letters or digits. Note the Bowling Green station that has a unique name, but still is shown as "Bowling Green [4,5]". Vcohen (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The display of 4,5 in such a case is unrelated to disambiguation, it provides a convenient reference for the trains that use the station, which may be relevant for maps and travel aides, but is not really relevant for the title of an encyclopdia article. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't occur in London, where some routes share stations too. Therefore it isn't traveller's information, but the accepted practice of station naming in the NYCS. It's true throughout all kinds of use, not only on Google Maps. Vcohen (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another break

Comment

Titles like 167th Street (IND Concourse Line) don't even tell me it is a station. The signage at the entrance simply says "167 Street Station" - clarity. I disagree with using titles like "167 Street" which do not include "Station" because that is the name of the Street not the Station. Similarly intersection names are just that, an intersection of two streets where the station is located. 65.95.176.146 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The word station may not be part of the article's title, exactly like the word food is not part of the title Soup and the word desease is not part of the title Common cold. Vcohen (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a poor analogy. Yes "Soup" is a food but "Soup kitchen" is a kitchen; just as "167 Street" is a Street and "167 Street Station" is a Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.49.146 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, there are examples of both types. Vcohen (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)