Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This talk page archive was previously part of WikiProject New York City Subway, which has since expanded to WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

September 9, 2006

If anyone sees edits to any articles regarding service changes set to occur on September 9, 2006, feel free to revert immediately. There is no source for this information. Articles that I've seen affected include D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). Keep an eye out on other articles, too; thanks. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This person is repeatedly vandalizing these articles. Although there are numerous IP Addresses who are responsible, I think one person is soley to blame since he/she could be constantly changing computers or the IP Address of one computer is changing periodicly. Every single member of WikiProject: New York City Subway should add the following articles to their watchlist, B (New York City Subway service), Q (New York City Subway service), W (New York City Subway service), D (New York City Subway service), T (New York City Subway service), R40 (New York City Subway car), R40A (New York City Subway car), and R68 (New York City Subway car). We have to work together to stop this vandalism. The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NYCS Navbox

Any objections to adding Metrocard to the navbox? It would seem pretty logical to me. Alphachimp talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. Great thinking! --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Service changes on B/T/D?

The alleged September service changes on the B and D routes, and the alleged introduction of the T route, were once again added to the articles for those services today, without attribution. I reverted them.

Somebody is being very persistent. Marc Shepherd 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Persistent" is an understatement. Other articles affected include the following:
--Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
They've been added to my watchlist. Larry, are you making that subpage that the admin told you to? alphaChimp laudare 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No one told me to do anything. I vaguely recall someone being told to do that, though… I'll look that up. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone, I thought it was you, was told to make a subpage documenting the attempted introduction of innacuracies into the nyct articles. That way, whenever one of us reported them to WP:AIV, we could just point a confused admin (with no background in subways) to the page. alphaChimp laudare 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the warnings we ought to be using are {{subst:verror}} {{subst:verror2}} {{subst:verror3}} and {{subst:verror4}} alphaChimp laudare 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, see User talk:Gimmetrow#Subway vandal. I'll get to working on that myself, though. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I created a page documenting the vandalism here. Gimmetrow 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the offending edits have come from at least three different IP addresses, suggesting that the offender has no fixed location from where he connects to the Internet. Marc Shepherd 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. That's not to say that they can't all be reverted or blocked. This whole thing is irritating, but really not much more than that. We're on often enough that the impact should be minimal. alphaChimp laudare 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The vandal could possibly be using an ISP that dynamically changes IP addresses (such as AOL). --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He's back. I'm proud to say I had the changes reverted within 10 minutes max =). alphaChimp laudare 00:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Who added info about T train service? That won't be around for 10-15 years, if ever! --imdanumber1 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This IP user is doing it again! If there are such changes, it would be said so on the MTA site.

I created a page documenting the vandalism here. Gimmetrow 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


D (New York City Subway service)

The IP user, 152.163.100.68, has added unverifable contributions to the D (NYCS service) article. There are no such changes, as I have checked the MTA website for such G. Os. I am not sure how to revert his edits, or else I would. --imdanumber1 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Great WikiProject here. I'm actually quite impressed at the quality of some of the station and line articles; I hadn't even thought such articles would exist. In any case, when checking out the pages of the train stops near where I live, it occurred to me that one thing which might improve the quality of these articles are pictures of the individual stations, or maybe a picture of the neighborhood in which the stations sit. I could take them if people are interested...would people be interested in that? -- Deville (Talk) 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Ideally, try to snap a photo that captures the station uniquely. Even where the articles have photos, sometimes it's just a picture of train tracks and a platform that could be anywhere. Marc Shepherd 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


So called September 9, 2006 subway changes

I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the changes made to several articles regarding Sept. 9, 2006 subway changes. At some point several IP users keep adding these so called changes to several articles, about how they will affect service, as well as what subway cars will be used. Luckily, after a while, some editors reverted them, only after a while they were doing it again. One editor showed me where they got these ridiculous ideas from, which was a talk page called SubTalk, where these changes were really fantasy (I'm surprised these IP users took it seriously).

I am glad these changes are on hiatus (for now), as I would have given up. But really, wouldn't they have just enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them? Also, if these service changes were to take affect, it would happen on a Sunday or a Monday, and clearly, Sept. 9th is on a Saturday. However, for now, I have not seen much action from them; I often check on the articles that they edit (or in this case, vandalize). But if these changes were to take affect, I wouldn't be so surprised. --imdanumber1 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The perpetrator is not a rational person. A rational person would back up the claim with a source, and would engage in a dialogue with others working on the subway project. The pertetrator hasn't had "enough sense to go to the MTA website or ask them," because the perpetrator doesn't care. Marc Shepherd 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I created a page documenting the vandalism here. The Sept 9 vandalism is connected with another form of vandalism. Gimmetrow 12:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the same thing I was saying to myself, Marc; If there are such changes, wouldn't the MTA let us know at least a couple of months in advance, as well as posting up notices in stations, and brochures depicting this? --imdanumber1 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the URL for SubTalk. I want to take a look at it immediately to see what the hell is going on?The Legendary Ranger 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

SubTalk is no longer online. A very similar board is at http://www.subchat.com -- Cecropia 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected a few of the affected pages. I've already banned one of the vandal accounts. I intend to remove the protection after September 9. alphaChimp laudare 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent alphaChimp. --imdanumber1 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It' already September 9, 2006, and I just went on the subway and didn't see any service changes. I think we can unblock those users and unprotect the articles that were vandalized, but keep those articles on your watchlist because someone else might try to do the same thing, setting up a different date.The Legendary Ranger 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, was just going to post a similar message like this myself. Stupid IP users! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

14 St-Union Square

Any good reason not to merge the three separate 14th Street–Union Square articles into one? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for merges of big subway stations like that. Do it. alphaChimp laudare 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Support per proposal Marc Shepherd 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
While we're in the merging discussion, can we merge 168th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) with 168th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)?. Or is the station too small? alphaChimp laudare 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support merging those two, although there are a number of far more "integrated" complexes that I would rate as a higher priority to merge, such as:
Marc Shepherd 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for those merges. I'm not sure I really like the result of the 42nd St. merge. It seems like 3 separate articles. Any ideas on how we could merge them (and make them look like 1 article)? alphaChimp laudare 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The two 168th Street stations are - for all intents and purposes - one station complex. The IRT station is operated as an auxilliary station to 168th Street on the A Line. Booth N-12 is the Main Booth, and Booth R-182 is the Part Time Booth which comes out of, and returns to N-12.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not for all those merges, unfortunately. Several station complexes are notable enough as complexes to merit a single article. I don't think that 168th Street is one of them; those are just two very separate stations that happen to have the same name and a free transfer. If you've ever been to Fulton Street-Broadway/Nassau, you can see that for such an important transfer point, it is remarkably unintegrated—which is what the Fulton Street Transit Center project is aiming to remedy. And so forth. Merging is sometimes a good idea, but we should not go merging articles at whim, just because there happen to be free transfers, and because the stations happen to have the same name. Many of the proposed merges involve very separate stations that have little notability as a single complex. Times Square is widely known as a complex, as is Grand Central. Union Square, I think, can be considered in that same vein. I would consider Fulton Street to be one as well, if it were not for the fact that the complex is a blatant example of four clearly separate but haphazardly connected stations. I don't think that Borough Hall is notable enough as a whole. Columbus Circle is borderline.
Conclusion: Merge Union Square, but discuss the others first. Thoroughly discuss. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we all seem to be in agreement as to Union Square. On the issue of 168th St.: I really don't see how they're two very separate subway stations. True, they're on different lines with different tunnel sizes. There isn't a connection between the 1 and the A/C. I just don't see what makes that connection any different from that of the A/C/E @ 42 St. and the 7 @ 42 St. alphaChimp laudare 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to see 168th Street as a complex. It's a simple transfer between two lines that cross. It's less "integrated" than most other transfers of this nature—the only connection between the two stations is via elevator. It just happens that the two stations have the same name. This is not very different than the example you gave—which is why 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) and Times Square-42nd Street (New York City Subway) are still separate articles. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But the only connection between the 1/9 area and anywhere is that elevator, which renders that point moot. In fact, all passengers travelling from the 1/9 area must travel through the AC level of the station. I don't understand why you don't think it's a complex. alphaChimp laudare 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Provide your rough definition of complex, so I can have a better idea of your angle. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
An underground structure connecting multiple subway lines located within reasonably close proximity. alphaChimp laudare 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I find that to be a very broad definition of the term. That would make nearly every transfer point a "complex", even the ones that aren't so complex. Take Times Square–42nd Street. That station consists of four sets of platforms connected via elevators, dozens of stairs, and several mezzanine levels. It's complex, complicated, intricate. 168th Street is far simpler. Station, elevator, station—that's pretty much it. It doesn't have much identity as a single unit, if you know what I mean. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Although it isn't 42nd St., it is not simple. There are 2 mezzanine levels, 3 elevators, and numerous stairways. A large ventilation system connects the upper and lower segments of the complex. The A/C station is bordered on the north by an underground storage yard for C trains. To attempt to draw a line between different levels of station complexity seems ridiculous and confusing. (I've noticed this a lot in adding bus line templates.) We've got to decide whether we're going to make all transfer points 1 article, or all transfer points separate articles (maybe with a transfer point infobox, that would be cool). alphaChimp laudare 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I would rather keep all the stations separate then. What would we do with transfer points where the stations had different names? Such as:
Would we just decide some arbitary combination of the individual names? I'm not so sure of the need for a black-and-white decision like this, but I would vote for complete separation. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a few rough guidelines. If it's one dot on the official subway map, then in general it should be one article. The fact that two or more stations were combined years ago is an historical detail. To the typical "reasonable person," one dot on the map looks and smells like one subway station. By this guideline, the following should be merged (there are probably others I've missed):

  • 14th Street-Union Square
  • 34th Street-Herald Square
  • 168th Street
  • Borough Hall
  • 161st Street-Yankee Stadium
  • Broadway Junction
  • Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues

The advantage of this standard is that it's very easy to apply. There's no subjective argument about the complexity of the passageways, and so forth. Several of Larry V's examples are separate dots on the map, and wouldn't fall under this proposal (though a couple of them would).

There may be a handful of cases where there are multiple dots on the map, but it "seems like" one station on the street. The Fulton Street complex fits this description, given the fact that there is a current project to better integrate the platforms, and it is actually labeled "Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau" on most of the street-level entrances.

As the distance between technically-connected stations increases, the argument for merging becomes more tenuous. I'm fine with 42nd Street on the Eighth Avenue Line being a separate article from the rest of the Times Square complex. For similar reasons, I wouldn't merge the 14th Street articles at Sixth and Seventh Avenues, even though they are connected by a similar block-long passageway. Marc Shepherd 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing about this method is that the subjective decision has simply changed hands from us to the MTA. The dots can change from Map to Map, as I'm sure everyone has seen. For example, Broadway Junction and Yankee Stadium were each two dots, until recently. In addition, there are quite a few "complexes" that are better-connected than ones in the list above that can never fit the "one-dot" standard because of a local line crossing an express line ((e.g., Lex/59), or map design constraints (e.g., Atlantic-Pacific). I'm thinking of something more like the following: If three or more lines connect at a station, make it one article. But even then, we'll have to deal with Canal Street on the Broadway, Nassau Street, and Lex Avenue lines. What would that be named? Can't be "Canal Street (New York City Subway)". What then? I'd rather split them all up. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Should it bother us that "the subjective decision" is the MTA's? After all, it's their system that we're describing. Can anyone imagine the day that the two Yankee Stadium stations or the three Broadway Junction stations will ever be split apart again? There are places where stations could have been joined, but weren't. But I can't think of a case where, once joined, they've been broken up.
It seems to me that the following cases present no difficulty at all, in that they're one dot on the subway map, and there are no naming issues:
  • 14th Street-Union Square
  • 34th Street-Herald Square
  • 59th Street-Columbus Circle
  • 168th Street
  • Borough Hall
  • 161st Street-Yankee Stadium
  • Broadway Junction
  • Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues
The advantage of merging the articles is that as information is added — such as bus connections and local points of interest — it goes in one place. I can't conceive of a downside of creating one article in each of these cases, as has already been done for station complexes like Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, 42nd Street-Grand Central, and Times Square-42nd Street.
There are a few others where the naming issues are trivial to resolve. For instance, at 14th Street and Eighth Avenue, the article would begin:
14th Street–Eighth Avenue is a New York City Subway station. Located at the intersection of 14th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, it is served by the A, E, and L trains at all times, and the C train at all times except late nights. The station consists of two originally separate stations that are now joined and share a common mezzanine: 14th Street on the IND Eighth Avenue Line and Eighth Avenue on the BMT Canarsie Line.
The article would go on to describe the two originally separate stations, with information like station entrances and exits, bus connections, and local points of interest being described in common. Other transfer stations where lines cross at right angles, and are literally one on top of the other, can be described this way.
There are some thorny cases, which we can discuss and resolve individually, but surely we should be able to agree on these easy ones. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for Shepherd's proposal. It's interesting to note that the production of the subway map is actually outsourced to a design company. The decision might actually be made there. Whether or not they made the decision, however, Transit certainly endorses it. I'd agree that any station that shows a tunnel (on the subway map) is likely a station that should have multiple articles, while a station that has a single blip should be a single article.
For simplicity's sake, I'd suggest the creation of a "Transit Hub" or "Linked Stations" infobox that we could add below the station infobox. As another option, we could just add some optional parameters to the bottom of the subway station infobox. A user could simply click on the other connected stations. Right now, it's extremely hard to determine whether stations are linked. alphaChimp laudare 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your arguments about merging or not merging stations into singular complexes is the fact that the eventual goal of the NYCT is to consolidate all joint stations into singular complexes. For example, Pacific Street - which was a seperate station from the BMT Atlantic Avenue station even in the pre-Unification days, and became 3 seperate stations until Booths B-1. B-2, R-611 and R-616 were eliminated. Today, Pacific Street now bears both Pacific Street and Atlantic Avenue signs, and all three stations are now staffed from the main booth, R-610. Booth C-9 at Pacific Street is considered subordinate to R-610. For all intents and purposes, it is now one unified complex. The Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau Complex is going to get more complex when it gets merged with Cortlandt Street on the R, and - by extension - Chambers Street-World Trade Center on the A/C/E/2/3.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand. Are you proposing the merger of all linked stations into singular complexes? alphaChimp laudare 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The three 14th Street–Union Square articles have been merged into 14th Street-Union Square (New York City Subway). It appears to me that there is broad consensus to merge the other cases where there is one dot on the subway map and/or no thorny naming issues. Marc Shepherd 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be disagreeing with this, so in moments of leisure (ha! ha!) I am going to go ahead and do this, again limiting it to the very straightforward cases like 14th St-Union Square where there are no difficult side-effects to worry about. Marc Shepherd 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent job on Union Square, Marc. I'm quite impressed. Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

STATION COMPLEXES

Officially, the following station groups are operated as complexes, although not all of them yet have unitary management or supervision. That is the goal, however. In all cases, they all originally were structured - and operated as - stand-alone structures that had nothing to do with their companions. All of the complexes have been assembled over time.

  1. 168th Street
  2. Yankee Stadium-161 Street
  3. 149th Street-Grand Concourse
  4. Columbus Circle-59th Street
  5. Lexington Avenue-59th Street
  6. Lexington Avenue-51st Street
  7. Times Square-42nd Street-Port Authority
  8. Grand Central
  9. Bryant Park - 42nd Street-5th Avenue
  10. Herald Square-34th Street
  11. 14th Street-8th Avenue
  12. 14th Street-6th Avenue-7th Avenue
  13. 14th Street-Union Square
  14. Broadway-Laffayette-Bleeker
  15. Essex-Delancey
  16. Canal Street-Chinatown
  17. Chambers-Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall
  18. Fulton-Broadway-Nassau
  19. Roosevelt-Jackson heights-74th Street
  20. Court Square-Long Island City-Ely Avenue
  21. Myrtle-Wyckoff
  22. Broadway Junction
  23. Franklin Avenue-Fulton Street
  24. Franklin Avenue-Botanic Garden
  25. 9th Street-4th Avenue
  26. 62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I suggested above, for starters we surely should combine those where it is extremely straightforward (identical name, or stations virtually on top of each other). I can't really see any downside in such cases. The only debatable ones, IMO, are the ones with very lengthy connecting passages, such as 6th-7th Avenues at 14th St. I'm content to leave those separate for now. Marc Shepherd 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking honestly, complexes that have just one name, and one alone should be merged. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 02:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to add the future South Ferry-Whitehall Street complex. best to be added when construction is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs)

Besides, I don't think that the names of the stations should matter whether or not the complexes should be merged. When it comes to transfers, that is what matters. --imdanumber1 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Documenting temporary service changes

Some of the NYCS articles mention service changes that are short-lived, and are only in force during off-hours.

I think our priority should be to describe the system's permanent, or long-lived characteristics. General Orders (GO's) come and go. Riders don't think of Wikipedia as the GO database. Our coverage in that area is not likely to be complete, accurate, or timely. When the GO ends, someone needs to remember to update the page(s) that were temporarily changed.

A good example is the 4 article, which now reads:

The normal service pattern is currently disrupted on weekends and late nights due to construction for the new South Ferry Terminal and track replacement on the Lexington Avenue Line.

All it says is that service is "disrupted." It doesn't say precisely what the disruption is, or the replacement services that are offered. No one, aside from those who already know what is happening, could put this information to practical use.

I would suggest that only service patterns that are expected to be relatively long-lasting belong on Wikipedia. Off-hours or weekend disruptions of a temporary nature do not belong on Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You couldn't have put it any better, Marc. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Stuff that occurs for like 2 weekends, is relatively minor. However, stuff lasting over six months or so, then it should be noted. And if I recall there were details about it on the 4 page, but some 24.xxx ip moved it all to South Ferry.Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you notice how the MTA updates G.Os. every Friday, I guess we can do the same. We can create a title under the NYCS service pages, with the last title, General Orders. I will try to experiment this in the sandbox, or you can ask me to email it to you. --imdanumber1 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this suggestion misses the point. Fundamentally, Wikipedia isn't a "G.O. database." Riders don't visit Wikipedia for that purpose. Our coverage of G.O.'s can never be as accurate, as timely, or as reliable as the MTA's. For the information to be useful, one would need to thoroughly describe precisely what is changing, precisely when, and any replacement service that is offered. Given the structure of the WP:NYCS project, there could be many articles that need to be updated to document a temporary service change, followed by a series of related updates after the G.O. is over. It is just not realistic to expect Wikipedia to be the source for this ephemeral, constantly-changing information.
There are hundreds of articles still tagged as {{NYCS-stub}}s. Clearly, we have a long way to go before we will have reasonably complete coverage of the New York City Subway's permanent characteristics. Time spent gumming up articles with short-lived temporary service changes is time not spent on more important matters. Marc Shepherd 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, GO's usually move from week to week. The only notable ones to mention are those that will be in effect for the long term, like the one keeping the G from Forest Hills. And the whole lower manhattan soup will end in October. *keeps fingers crossed* Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it ends November 13th! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Substituting simple templates

For some reason there's an overabundance of NYCS templates. Per the manual of style we shouldn't be using templates to generate simple links. It's overkill. I'll be substituting out the rest of them soon. --Cyde Weys 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Initially, I was also shocked by the fact that the NYCS project was using a large number of templates for simple styling. I've since understood the value of these for updating purpoces. The templates provide a good way of making sure that the information is up to date. It is an extra load on the database, but may be worth it. I'm willing to let the project participants deceide on whether it is. --Swift 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and see User talk:Cyde#NYCS templates for more discussion on the issue. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted on Cyde's talk page requesting a link to his bot's approval for this action. alphaChimp laudare 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys has proposed Template:NYCS A for deletion. The nomination states he believes all of the NYCS templates of this ilk should be deleted, but he has proposed only this one first. Given that he is aware of this project's existence, a TfD nomination without a heads-up here seems to be rather underhanded.

In any event, I suggest clicking through to Template:NYCS A to vote. Marc Shepherd 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also have a look at the proposal to merge the NYCS* templates at Template talk:NYCS. --Swift 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a computer science background and I'd like to help. But I need to learn the syntax and language that Wikipedia uses. If any of you have good links for WP programming beginners, you can post a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tinlinkin 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Posted here for greater exposure: The MediaWiki extentsion m:ParserFunctions provides a pseudo-scripting language feature to the wiki syntax. It's simple, but not very powerful. KISS, I guess.
For the purpose of {{NYCS}}, the single switch will do. The syntax is intuative enough that many editors should be able to edit it without any programming/scripting background. --Swift 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We appear to have made considerable progress. Cyde's original premise was that templates should not be used for this purpose. We are now discussing a new design that makes no practical difference in editorial convenience, but replaces many templates with one. At the moment, I am neutral on the proposal (although I could be persuaded). I am eager to see the TfD discussion ended, so that the ugly extra text will disappear from pages that use {{NYCS A}}. Marc Shepherd 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Station Complexes (continued)

Merging a couple of pages into one big station complex should be done, despite the names of the station. Chambers Street-World Trade Center has been merged, despite the name differences. The transfers between station lines should be considered a station complex as long as it is not an out-of system transfer. --imdanumber1 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there was consensus to merge the articles in all cases where the name is the same, and there is no other naming conflict. It's on my list of things to do, if nobody else gets to it first.
There are other cases where a merge probably makes sense, and would have community buy-in, but there was definitely not consensus to merge in every conceivable case where there is a transfer inside of fare control.
I would start with the very straightforward cases about which there is no dispute, and see how that goes. Marc Shepherd 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start off simply, like creating the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex page, with merging the IRT and BMT Atlantic Avenue pages, as well as the BMT Pacific Street page. I will experiment this in the sandbox. --imdanumber1 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If we are creating complex pages, the titles should be shown as the following example: Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex.

I have two suggestions. First, please start off with the easy ones:
  • 34th Street-Herald Square
  • 59th Street-Columbus Circle
  • 168th Street
  • Borough Hall
  • Broadway Junction
  • Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues
  • Franklin Avenue
All of these involve two (or, in the case of Broadway Junction, three) identically-named stations that present the fewest difficulties. Get those behind us.
Secondly, we already have a number of merged station articles, and in no case is the word "Complex" in the article title. I'm not saying it couldn't be, but at the moment it isn't. Let's develop a clear strategy before introducing inconsistent names. Marc Shepherd 15:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. For now, however, I have created my own sandbox subpage so I can conduct experiments. What I have did right now is experimented creating a page that could be used, called the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex (New York City Subway). It can be viewed by visting the User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox page.

And I will be willing to help you out Marc with creating the complex pages described above. --imdanumber1 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I have finished creating the 34th Street-Herald Square (New York City Subway) page, which describes both 6th Avenue and Broadway stations of the same name. I will be working on doing the same with others. --imdanumber1 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You may now check off 59th Street-Columbus Circle off the List. I just finished merging that too. --imdanumber1 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As well as [[Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway). --imdanumber1 23:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Category

Just to let you know that I've created Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. It's up to you how you want to mention this on the project page, or how to modify it to your needs. Tinlinkin 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't be able to finish adding templates to the category at this time. (I've got to get to sleep!) Tinlinkin 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea, thanks. Anyone else have opinions? alphaChimp laudare 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Not bad, not bad. I've been thinking about a way to point users to WP:NYCS, and this is as good as any of them. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
We could always tag article talk pages with a bot run. It'd be pretty easy. alphaChimp laudare 12:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The lack of a category for these pages was on my mind. Thanks to Tinlinkin for taking the lead. Marc Shepherd 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Organization, for the win! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
lol, this project is awesome. Do you guys need a bot to do it? (Alphachimpbot comes running.) alphaChimp laudare 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Great job adding the templates! It's good to have them all in one place. --Swift 10:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

If you look at pages like the IRT Jerome Avenue Line article, the Station Listing Table is a stub, compared to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line or the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line and needs more work. I will be creating a station listing table for this article, as well as others that need attention. --imdanumber1 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just updated the base information as it was not correct (see the discussion for that article).

--Allan 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging NYCS templates

On Template talk:NYCS I've listed a method of merging most of the NYCS* templates (except for {{NYCS Time}} and such) into one. If agreed to, the new syntax would be {{NYCS|<foo>}} instead of {{NYCS <foo>}}. There would be one template instead of almost a hundred and the old ones, once deprecated and links to them updated, deleted.

The argument for includes the ease of updating and a centralised place for managing the templates. The argument against includes the extra complexity that results from using a m:ParserFunction. This was mentioned above, but got little discussion. Please, those whom it concerns, mention your thoughts on the matter, either below or on the NYCS template talk page. --Swift 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the second version of Template:NYCS that I've seen. In the first version, {{NYCS}} replaced only the templates that are replaced by one or two letters or numbers, such as {{NYCS 1}} or {{NYCS QT}}, which expand to 1 and QT respectively.
In this new proposal, Template:NYCS would replace all of the "NYCS *" templates, including the Line templates. I take it that the version of Template:NYCS now available is intended merely as an illustration, and if the idea is accepted, all of the "NYCS *" templates would be incorporated into it. What's there now only incorporates some of them.
I was okay with the first version. It was a very simple way of replacing many of the simplest and straightforward templates. If Template:NYCS becomes a switch statement with hundreds of cases, I wonder if that is an improvement? Marc Shepherd 01:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Marc, I thought I'd made that clear from the start. The first "version" was just a way to indicate how this would be done. I didn't want to waste my time writing up all the subway lines, so I just did the simple ones. Read the Template talk:NYCS page, it says which templates I proposed should be merged.
"I wonder if that is an improvement?" Please read the second paragraph from the top of this section, give your oppinion on those and any provide any new arguments that you have in mind. Your thoughts do us little good if you don't verbalize them. --Swift 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, can we start getting together a list of all of the templates that are going o be replaced? --Cyde Weys 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can read on Template talk:NYCS, the templates can be found on Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. --Swift 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I see a problem. If a purpose of using the individual line templates is to see what articles link to them, then the old way is better. With all the line templates merged into Template:NYCS, you cannot "see" the arguments that are used to call that template from its "What links here" page. Therefore, finding out what articles call a particular service from the template (say {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}}, which is {{NYCS|Eastern far west express}} , is currently used by Borough Hall and Nevis Street stations) will be impossible to find out (as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes). But I do support the concept of merging; however, if what I described will be a problem, all bets are off, unless a better implementation can be found. Tinlinkin 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the version that works for me is this one. It replaces only those templates of the form {{NYCS nn}}, where nn is one or two characters (A-Z, 1-9). I don't know if this is any better from a server load or esthetic point of view, but makes a number of very simple templates go away, and no functionality is lost.
The more general solution has not only the drawback that Tinlinkin points out above, but it results in a very bulky switch statement with hundreds of cases. Marc Shepherd 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, when will the TfD discussion end, so that those ugly warnings will stop appearing on every page that transcludes {tl|NYCS A}}?
The thing is that "What links here" isn't part of the encyclopedic content, it is part of the software. As such, none of the mirrors use it, so it's worthless to a large number of eventual readers of the content that we happen to be creating on Wikipedia. The much more desireable solution would be a list page in article space that basically says, "These are the stations on Eastern far west express, these are the stations on ....", etc. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed a problem, but only if the purpose of the templates is to see which pages link to them. Which I don't think is a justifiable use of templates. Use categories instead. We do seem to have to discuss the reason for why a template is necessary at all (see section #The purpose of the NYCS templates. --Swift 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My idea was to expand {{NYCS}} to take two arguments, a line and an optional text. A call to {{NYCS|B|123a}} would form B. Articles could either use this code, or use {{NYCS_Brighton_express}}. The former would involve a lot of conversion and would be difficult to maintain. The latter would involve templates calling templates, which is discouraged. However, all articles with the {{NYCS Brighton express}} template could be found easily, and any changes could be handled in a single location for all articles. More complex expressions, like {{NYCS Eastern center}}, would contain {{NYCS|2|1}}{{NYCS|3|1234}}{NYCS|4}}{{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 2, ​3, ​4, and ​5. Thoughts on this? Gimmetrow 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we may be trying to do too many things at once. We don't need a single template that will handle every combination of linking you could imagine in every single NYCS article. I was just looking for a simple template that could replace all of the "NYCS A", "NYCS B", "NYCS 1", etc., templates. There's a happy medium between template overload, which is one template for every different thing under the sun (what we have now), and trying to cram too much into a single template, which is what it sounds like you are suggesting. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The extra argument is a good idea as it merges the functionality of {{NYCS Time}} into {{NYCS}}, effectively halfing the number of calls to the database. I'm not sure if this serves one of the goals of the template; to provide a simple way of updating line information on many pages by doing so on the template. But then again, I'm not quite sure what the goals of the template are (I'm not a member of the NYCS project). See #The purpose of the NYCS templates for that discussion. --Swift 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is a continuation on Cyde's idea; there would still be 100+ NYCS templates for all the non-simple ones like {{NYCS Brighton express}}, but the time template would be handled inside NYCS. It seemed one of the proposals on the TfD page involved a template with a monster switch; I'm indirectly arguing against that. Gimmetrow 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was one of those suggesting the monster switch ;-) but am liking it less and less (I didn't quite realise the enormity of the task caused by the number of NYCS templates). I'm fine with merging {{NYCS Time}}'s functionality. Since it used to only take one parameter, it will be easy to make backwards compatible. --Swift 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the NYCS templates

What is the purpose of the NYCS templates? I came to this discussion via the TfD discussion and initially thought there wasn't much good reason for {{NYCS A}}'s existance. Reading comments, I saw the benefit of having only to update line information in a template, rather than on a multitude of pages. There, however, was no single place for these templates (this was before they were added to the project category) so I figured, why not just merge them, then both content and style could be hadled centrally.

I think some of us in this discussion have different notions on what the purpose of these templates is. It may be useful to clarify that. --Swift 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two batches of templates under discussion. First, there are the very simple ones, such as {{NYCS Q}}, which expands to Q. Second, there are the line templates, such as {{NYCS Eastern center}}, which expands to 2, ​3, ​4, and ​5.
The simple templates serve the following purposes:
  • They ensure consistent formatting. The adopted standard of the project is that services are always referred to in bold: Q, not plain Q. The use of these templates ensures that this standard is followed. If the standard is changed in the future, as it well may be e.g., to , the change would be trivial to implement.
  • Should the service articles be split, the change can be implemented easily. This has happened twice recently, when F-V and A-C were split into separate articles. Those references that used the templates were fixed in minutes. Those that were hard-coded took hours.
  • They are an immense labor-saving device. It is easier to type {{|NYCS Q}} (10 characters) than '''[[Q (New York City Subway service)|Q]]''' (44 characters).
  • They make editing much easier. In articles that refer to many different subway services, that 44-character furball is awkward to read and manipulate — bearing in mind that they are lexically equivalent to just a single character. I would add that the use of these templates in articles not maintained by the NYC Subway project suggests that other editors have quickly caught on to this very simple standard.
  • They make it easy to find all references to the service, should a mass change be required. Due to the hassle of typing or cutting-pasting the aforementioned 44-character furball, if the templates did not exist, lots of editors would be tempted just to type '''Q'''. Given the many hundreds of subway articles, there would be no chance of easily finding every use of the bare letter Q.
The more complicated templates, such as {{NYCS Eastern center}}, serve the same purposes as the simple ones, but also some additional ones. Basically, these templates represent every section of track between merge/diverge points, where service could be offered. They correspond to the physical plant on which the services ride. Some of them produce fairly verbose output, such as {{NYCS Times Square}}, which displays as 1, ​2, and ​3 7 and <7>​ N Q R S W. Others are quite simple, such as {{NYCS Canarsie}}, which displays as just L. But here too, when service patterns change — as they do from time to time — the change is made in one place, and dozens of articles are immediately updated accurately. When an editor works on an article, there is no need to painstakingly check if all of this information is correct. If the templates have been used, you know they are correct.
Due to the highly inter-related nature of the subway articles, ongoing maintenance without heavy use of templates would be a nightmare. Marc Shepherd 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I kinda like the idea of using the bullets instead of text. But that might cause more problems. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent summary. Thanks for taking the time!
"They make it easy to find all references to the service". Not that it invalidates any of the other arguements; why would you want to find these references, since the changes to them are done elsewhere (in the template itself) anyway?
As for an argument for the gianormous switch; it would bring all the templates into one for a centralised place to modify and ensure consistancy in appearance and function. Granted, this will create a pretty horrific pieceo of text for people editing without a good text editor an syntax highlighting. Perhaps a much better way to reach this goal is to simply have a sub-category in Category:WikiProject New York City Subway. --Swift 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, going ahead with the templates ...

{{NYCS}} currently looks like it's trying to handle too much. Are we going to go forward with the {{NYCS **}} -> {{NYCS|**}} thing, the most simple of solutions to handle the common ones? --Cyde Weys 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK with me; {{NYCS}} handles that. (In fact, I think all the single- and double-letter variations are handled by the default case without a separate case in the switch statement, if we go that way.) Gimmetrow 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have modified {{NYCS}} to remove all but the simple cases — which is the only usage that appeared to have the potential for consensus. I would like to hear from some of the "regulars" on the subway project. I am not claiming that the subway projecct "owns" the articles, but realistically, these are the people likely to be working with them most heavily over the long term. There is no urgency to do something half-cocked, and I'd like to see that consensus actually exists to make this change — hopefully a refreshing improvement over the way it was done last time. Marc Shepherd 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a good reason this should be a switch at all? The basic functionality can be done without a switch. Gimmetrow 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The switch is my fault. I put it on the talk page as an example of how a single template could contain many. At the time, my suggestion was that the more complicated ones could be merged as well.
As of now, only the simple ones seem to be up for merger, in which case in can be reduced to
[[{{{1}}} (New York City Subway)|]]
provided that links such as AA (New York City Subway) be made redirects (well, this may be a good idea in either case).
Modified when I realised that all the ??_(New York City Subway system) pages have redirects. My oversight occurred partly since I mistyped the link above. --Swift 03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As Marc suggested, I think I've been too vocal on this issue since I'm not a project member and don't actually use the template. I've voiced my oppinions and tried to stimulate discussion, and I'm sure you guys will find a good solution. --Swift 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirects are somewhat less effective, because you will end up with some reflexive links, which is best avoided. The version with the switch was better. Having said that, I am also content just leaving the original system as-is, and not replacing anything. Marc Shepherd 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Without the switch, {{NYCS|A}} and {{NYCS|AA}} work fine, while {{NYCS|XYZ}} produces a redlink to nowhere. This was the same behaviour with the switch - it copied the same letters given and added (New York City Subway service). It just happens that AA redirects to A. Gimmetrow 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw {{NYCS basic}} (from my mention on the Template talk:NYCS page) which has the same code as the current version of {{NYCS}}. I thought that {{NYCS}} was going to handle the complicated cases, so I made {{NYCS basic}} for the simple cases.
I think what Cyde is itching for is should articles containing {{NYCS A}} and similar NYCS one-letter templates be converted to {{NYCS}} with an argument now? For me, I have no problems with it. Someone should also set a deadline as to when the changes should occur.
On a side note, I'm a railfan, born and bred in New York City. I'm not joining this WikiProject yet because I have too much on my plate. But I know a lot about the NY subway system, so if you need my help, don't hesitate to ask me. I could be an unofficial member, if you like. (Or if you want me to join, I'll put my name down.) Tinlinkin 06:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Although Cyde is "itching for it," one has to ask, "What is the problem for which this is the solution?" We're long past Cyde's original premise—that such templates shouldn't exist at all, or should always be subst'ed. As the proposal has now evolved, all that would change syntactically is that the editor would enter, and see, {{NYCS|A}} in the edit window, rather than {{NYCS A}}. Both would display identically. All that would change in the background is that approximately four dozen fairly simple templates would be replaced with one that has a switch statement. (The switch statement is necessary if the proposal is to work correctly, for reasons I can go into later, if anyone wants to hear about it.) I am basically supportive of the idea, although I feel no great passion that it needs to be done. The template {{NYCS basic}}, by the way, does not appear to be needed. Marc Shepherd 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New navbox

User:AEMoreira042281 has created a new navbox called {{MTA (New York)}}, and has started adding it to many of the subway pages. The problem is that it is quite large, and duplicates quite a bit of the information in {{NYCS navbox}}. For an example, see 1 (New York City Subway service).

I would suggest that there is no need for two navboxes. If there are important links missing from the one we have, we should add them. If the new navbox is better, we should deprecate the old one. However, there should not be two. Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the new navbox would best go with the MTA page. However, I like it, but it doesn't go well with New York City Subway-related articles. --imdanumber1 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I created the second navbox was to present all MTA divisions in one toolbox. However, some of the information in smaller navigation boxes does not seem to fit inside logically. The main purpose of my creating the new navigation box was to provide a link to all MTA divisions within one box (buses, subways, commuter rail, and toll facilities). In short, this toolbox is a generalized toolbox that is also intended to replace the Template:NYCB navbox as well. Thoughts? --AEMoreira042281 00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's huge. NYCT thinks of itself as NYCT, not MTA. Obviously, it's a part of the organization. As it is right now, I don't support this box. alphaChimp laudare 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The box is huge. Agai, that might be due to the "huge" MTA service grasp. However the box could find a home with some re-tooling. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
But should that home be every single NYCS article? I'd rather just incorporae a little more in the NYCS navbox. alphaChimp laudare 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, since the MTA is control central this navbox should go with the MTA page, as the navbox can help people to get from the MTA page to other pages that are MTA-related. I do like this navbox, but it shouldn't replace the current NYCS navbox. --imdanumber1 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Navbox isn't necessary on the New York City Subway articles as those articles are only about New York City Transit. The box should only be on the MTA article. The Legendary Ranger 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That said, I don't mind. alphaChimp laudare 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Changes have been made to the MTA (New York) navbox. The subway links have been simplified. Now, there are only links to New York City Subway and Staten Island Railway, under the category Heavy Rail. The same will probably be done with the LIRR and Metro-North sections. I am also planning on making this toolbox link ONLY to the page for each division (LIRR, Metro-North, LI Bus, MTA Bus, NYC Transit buses and subways, etc.) --AEMoreira042281] 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Even in its now-reduced form, I would not endorse using it on any page that has {{NYCS navbox}}. It is not justified to have both on the same page, as they have many of the same links in common. Marc Shepherd 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of New York City Subway Stations

The MTA web site says there are 468 subway stations. I asked them for a list, and they replied to look at a subway map! So, I used the map to come up with my own list of 468 stations making some (hopefully reasonable) assumptions about whether or not to count separate lines in the same "complex" as part of the same "station".

I then compared my list to the "List of New York City Subway Stations" here on Wikipedia, and it turns out they are almost identical once you account for differences between the names on the list vs. the names on the map.

As a result, I'd like to propose that the following changes be made to the list here:

1. Move the following permanently closed/abandoned stations to a separate section that does not count toward the total: 

  18th Street (closed) on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line
  91st Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) (closed)
  City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)
  Dean Street (BMT Franklin Avenue Line) (closed)
  Worth Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) (closed)

2. Eliminate the duplicate entry for "East Broadway (IND Sixth Avenue Line)" which appears under both "B" and "E". I think it belongs under "E" since unlike (for example) "W 4 St" which is just a section of 4th Street, "East Broadway" has nothing to do with Broadway.

3. Split the following "complexes" into separate stations: 

  14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line becomes

     14th Street-Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line
     14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Broadway Line
     14th Street-Union Square on the BMT Canarsie Line

  42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, IRT Flushing Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line) becomes

     42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle)
     42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Flushing Line)
     42nd Street-Grand Central (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)

  42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle, BMT Broadway Line, IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line) becomes

     42nd Street-Times Square (IRT 42nd Street Shuttle)
     42nd Street-Times Square (BMT Broadway Line)
     42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)
     42nd Street-Times Square (IRT Flushing Line)

Note that I am NOT proposing that these "split" links point to separate articles, nor am I advocating any changes to station names (just to avoid what seem to be 2 of the most contentious issues).

With these changes, the list of stations here would be exactly 468, although it would certainly be nice if the MTA would publish their list so it could be verified.

Finally, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who has worked on creating the "New York City Subway" part of Wikipedia - your work is appreciated :)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments:
  1. I would remove the closed stations from the list.
  2. I have removed East Broadway from the "B" section, as suggested.
  3. The MTA's figure of 468 stations is a somewhat loose concept. I think the average reader will have an easier time of it if one bullet on the List of New York City Subway stations corresponds to one Wikipedia article. I admire your tenacity in counting up the bullets to reconcile to the 468 figure, but the typical reader won't really think about it that way. Marc Shepherd 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Station Complexes (continued (again))

Hey Marc, I have finished merging all of the station complexes you stated in Station Complex (continued). Now we can get to the harder ones soon enough now that we have the easier ones out of our way. --imdanumber1 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

imdanumber1 has done a great job merging the "easy cases." I think the results show that, where two or more originally separate stations are now joined inside of fare control, a single article is usually a lot more interesting, and has a much better chance of evolving into an "A-class" Wikipedia article. I support merges in most such cases. There are a few where I would not, mainly where I can't think of a reasonable non-confusing name.

Here are my views on the remaining list of station complexes mentioned above:

  1. 168th Street — already merged as 168th Street (New York City Subway)
  2. Yankee Stadium-161 Street — already merged as 161st Street-Yankee Stadium (New York City Subway)
  3. 149th Street-Grand Concourse — already merged as 149th Street-Grand Concourse (New York City Subway)
  4. Columbus Circle-59th Street — already merged as 59th Street-Columbus Circle (New York City Subway)
  5. Lexington Avenue-59th Street — already merged as 59th Street-Lexington Avenue (New York City Subway)
  6. Lexington Avenue-51st Street — already merged as 51st Street-Lexington Avenue (New York City Subway)
  7. Times Square-42nd Street-Port Authority — Times Square complex already merged as Times Square-42nd Street (New York City Subway); for now, oppose merging 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) into this article, since this was rejected when the original merged article for the Times Square complex was created
  8. Grand Central — already merged as 42nd Street-Grand Central (New York City Subway)
  9. Bryant Park - 42nd Street-5th Avenue — already merged as 42nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway)
  10. Herald Square-34th Street — already merged as 34th Street-Herald Square (New York City Subway)
  11. 14th Street-8th Avenue — already merged as Eighth Avenue-14th Street (New York City Subway)
  12. 14th Street-6th Avenue-7th Avenue — support merge of 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) and Sixth Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) into 14th Street-Sixth Avenue (New York City Subway); oppose merge of 14th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) into this article, due to the lack of a reasonable non-confusing name
  13. 14th Street-Union Square — already merged as 14th Street-Union Square (New York City Subway)
  14. Broadway-Laffayette-Bleeker — oppose merge for now, due to the lack of a reasonable non-confusing name
  15. Essex-Delancey — already merged as Essex-Delancey Streets (New York City Subway)
  16. Canal Street-Chinatown — already merged as Canal Street (New York City Subway)
  17. Chambers-Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall — oppose merge for now, due to the lack of a reasonable non-confusing name
  18. Fulton-Broadway-Nassau — already merged as Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets (New York City Subway)
  19. Roosevelt-Jackson heights-74th Street — oppose merge for now, due to the lack of a reasonable non-confusing name
  20. Court Square-Long Island City-Ely Avenue — oppose merge for now, due to the lack of a reasonable non-confusing name
  21. Myrtle-Wyckoff — already merged as Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway)
  22. Broadway Junction — already merged as Broadway Junction (New York City Subway)
  23. Franklin Avenue-Fulton Street — already merged as Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway)
  24. Franklin Avenue-Botanic Garden — already merged as Franklin Avenue-Botanic Garden (New York City Subway)
  25. 9th Street-4th Avenue — already merged as Ninth Street-Fourth Avenue (New York City Subway)
  26. 62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue — already merged as New Utrecht Avenue-62nd Street (New York City Subway)
  27. Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street — already merged as Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (New York City Subway)
Marc Shepherd 15:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edits to section above made by Imdanumber1)

Okay. I'm opposed to:
6: (strongly) Could cause possible confusion, and skirts original research.
9: see above. Another point the Flushing Line station is a good walk via passageway from the IND station.
14: Agreeing with Marc, sounds long winded and confusing. Plus the connection between the 6 and the Sixth Avenue Line is unidirectional.
17: see above
19: Agreeing with Marc once again, as the next station dow nthe Flushing Line is 82nd Street-Jackson Heights.
20: Agreeing with Marc
Everything, I'm okay with. As for 25, change that to Fourth Avenue-Ninth Street. It's on the map anyways. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Imdanumber1 went ahead and merged 51st Street-Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street-Bryant Park, despite the lack of consensus. It so happens I was in favor of these, although I think the consensus process should be followed. I changed imdanumber's name for the merged 42nd Street-Bryant Park article based on the guideline at WP:NAME that simpler names are favored. The name 42nd Street-Bryant Park is clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Marc Shepherd 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "angry" over the merging of 42nd Street, but I am still opposed to the 51st Street changes. The name chosen skirts original research. I'd rather have two semi-lack luster articles with correct titles, then to have a false name for the sake of simplicty or a rating. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "skirts original research"? Marc Shepherd 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The title of the page. Nowhere have I seen "Lexington Avenue-51st Street". That's a made up name.
I just don't want to go down that path, just to be organized. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This photo comes pretty close, showing "51st Street" and "Lexington Avenue" on the same sign. If we call the article 51st Street-Lexington Avenue (New York City Subway) are we violating WP:NOR because we added a hyphen and omitted the word "station"? Marc Shepherd 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not about "station". And I happen to like hyphens. But notice that the entrance mentions two seperate names the Lexington Avenue and 51st Street stations. If it was that name, you'd see that on the map. It is not on the map. In addition this photo mentions only 51st Street. On two entrances. Note that station signage is sometimes outdated. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The MTA's literature and signage are indeed inconsistent. For instance, on the map [1] here, there is a station called "42nd Street-Grand Central," but if you click on the same page's PDF link, you find a map where it's called "Grand Central-42nd Street." When I was researching the combined Chambers Street–World Trade Center article, I found about six different ways that that station has been portrayed over the years, sometimes as two stations, sometimes as one. The current official map makes Chambers Street and WTC on the Eighth Avenue Line appear considerably farther away from each other than they actually are.
The article name is simply a convenient "handle" that appears at the top of a page. Obviously the article name has to be rational and recognizable on some level, but I don't think it needs to incorporate every piece-part of the geographic location. The text of the article can do that. Marc Shepherd 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the ENTIRE nature of the merge because it introuduced a made up name, which was never officially used. In addition, the MTA notes it as two seperate stations that have a transfer between them. Two distinct dots connected by a passageway. Not one big dot. Two seperate stations, with seperate histories, that happen to have an connection to each other in fare control. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, Sorry about those last two articles I merged. Pacific Coast Highway was opposed to them. Sorry PCH!

Anyway, from now on, we should discuss what the name of station complexes should be until we can agree on a good name.

Anyway, I have problems with some of the names myself! For example, Marc suggested merging Fifth Avenue-Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line) and 4nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) into 4nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). I remain opposed to this, as the Flushing station's name is ommitted. So I came up with Fifth Avenue-42nd Street-Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Too bad it was reverted. These station names with more than three segments should be left until later, when a thorough decision can be made. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the name of the station does not need to be a built-in history lesson. Station Reporter (and they're about the most die-hard subway geeks imaginable) called it "42nd Street-Bryant Park complex"[2]. As I indicated in a message on Imdanumber1's talk page, I would be fine with "74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue" (another Station Reporter page title[3]). As noted at WP:NAME:
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
The article's name is just a convenient title, not an essay on all of the little bits & pieces that encompass every street and landmark that is in any of the constituent names of the complex. In general, anything more than two parts separated by hyphens is ugly, and goes beyond what is necessary to clearly identify the station complex you are talking about. I would only make an exception in the rare cases when the MTA themselves have done so in their signage and literature (e.g., 71st-Continental-Forest Hills). Marc Shepherd 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is not an issue of what title the page is. What I am opposed to is the merger of those two pages. They are two seperate stations, connected by a passageway. Two seperate entities, two seperate articles. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know about that, PCH, but stations that are connected via passageway, despite its length (example: like between Times Square and Port Authority, which is a block long), is considered a complex, to me and Marc that is. I'm don't have problems your opinions, but I was against your suggestion, and agreeing with Marc, I thought it would be okay to merge. The move was reverted, however, and this might proably require further suggestion until a decision can be made on this. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Can you give me a good reason why you were against these two specifically, as a lot of other stations I merged are also two seperate stations that are connected somehow?

That's it. You and Marc consider it to be a complex. The thing is does the MTA officially recognize it as a "complex"? We can't just make up things and assume. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Pool's Closed! • WP:NYCS} 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the original list of 26 complexes came from this thread above, and 51st-Lexington was on that list. The person who posted didn't state a source, but it certainly seems plausible to me. Marc Shepherd 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we find where exactly this information came from? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Pool's Closed! • WP:NYCS} 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the fact that a part of the station's name is ommitted. I'm fine with 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue, but 42nd Street-Bryant Park seems a little farfetched to me. No offense, Marc, but I do not agree that the station's name should be that way. Readers may not be able to recgonize that the station is a complex, especially if they run a search, where mostly a title is given, along with some contents within the page relevant to the search. We might as well call the station Fifth Avenue-42nd Street (New York City Subway) and omit Bryant Park then. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Bryant Park" is the one element that obviously should not be removed, since it was part of both original names before the articles were merged. Given a guideline that prefers the shortest unambiguous name, I would even be happy with "Bryant Park (New York City Subway)," and we could leave it at that. But "42nd Street-Bryant Park" is both accurate and unambiguous, as the IND station is perpendicular to 42nd Street, and the IRT station is on 42nd Street. This itch to create ugly and unwieldy article names by adding every geographic feature is totally unnecessary.
OTOH, we could "unmerge" 51-Lex and 42-Bryant if it is so difficult, as there was no consensus for merging them to begin with. It certainly becomes clear that if we're not going to agree on these, then cases like City Hall/Chambers and 23rd/Ely/LIC become totally hopeless. Marc Shepherd 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The IRT station is located under Bryant Park. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Pool's Closed! • WP:NYCS} 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That name seems like a good idea, Marc. Bryant Park (New York City Subway) seems fair to me. However, don't lose hope. If we can deal with Bryant Park, we can deal with the others. For example: We can merge Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street into Brooklyn Bridge-Chambers Street (New York City Subway). We can also merge Long Island City-Court Square and 23rd Street-Ely Avenue into Court Square-23rd Street. Tell me what you think of these moves so this project can continue. I will deal with the Bryant Park move. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any further alterations, besides those previously listed above for which there was consensus. These are my current votes, but I would do nothing on them until there is a fair opportunity for others to comment—not only as to the merge, but also as to the name of the new article:
FYI, the proposal was to merge the four Chinatown Canal Street stations into Canal Sreet Chinatown Complex (New York City Subway) not just Canal Street (New York City Subway). The latter is ambiguous, since there are two other Canal Street stations not connected to the Chinatown complex. The Canal Street merge should either be reverted or given a non-ambiguous name. Marc Shepherd 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


There is a page called Canal Street (disambiguation). Like other articles that have the same name, there are disambigs. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but in addition to that, each article should have a reasonable and unambiguous name, and besides that, the proposal on which consensus was sought was Canal Street Chinatown Complex (New York City Subway). Since there is now no consensus, clearly the change should be reverted. I assume that's what you're proposing? Marc Shepherd 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You told me at the beginning of this mini-project, that we shouldn't use inconsistent names. But if you want to use a new title, just move the article (again). No need for a revert. Too bad Alphachimp, Cecropia, and Larry V aren't here. Then we would get somewhere. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Alphachimp and Larry V are busy in real life. (Come to think of it, so am I....) Larry V's view on the Chinatown Complex can be found elsewhere on this page. He was opposed to the merge precisely because Canal Street (New York City Subway) is unclear. I am in favor of names that are simple, clear, consistent, and unambiguous. The difficulty arises when all four conditions can't be met in a single name. Canal Street is an example of this. Since it is already done, let's leave it as is until others have had a chance to weigh in. Marc Shepherd 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When we started this merging project, you said not to get into the case of inconsistent names. Adding the "Chinatown Complex" is inconsistent, and I don't believe it should be added. However, because of the disambig page, we can add a caption, stating: This article is about the Canal Street Complex. For other uses, see Canal Street (disambiguation). There is a template for this kind of caption, and I believe it will help so we don't get into the matter of inconsistent names. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sept. 9th, 2006 Subway Changes

It's September 10th, and there are no such subway changes. I rode the trains this morning; no changes, except for the occasional G. O. I will notify an admin (possibly Cecropia, if available) to see if he/they can unblock the I.P. users and remove the semi-protection from the previously affected articles. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. STILL keep an eye out, however, because the I.P. users might try to depict such changes again with a different date.

As far as I know, semi-protection has already been lifted from those articles that had been affected.
In the last several days, there have been no attempts to re-insert service changes. However, an anonymous user has been editing the rolling stock articles, changing the assignments of cars to services. I have been reverting those changes on sight, because they are unsourced, and the pattern is similar to that of the pre-September 9th edits.
Unfortunately, most of the rolling stock articles are unsourced to begin with. Unlike service patterns, the MTA does not publicly announce which cars are operating on each route, so I have no idea if these artices were correct to begin with. Many of the rolling stock articles cannot be verified. Marc Shepherd 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I spoke too soon: the B and D articles were vandalised this afternoon. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of this. I will report this to Alphachimp and Cecropia hoping them as sysops can fix this disgusting mess. These uncitable changes are really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish I were an admin now! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

More subway changes

I guess that the vandals couldn't get enough, and they starting to get on my nerves. Marc Shepherd says that "the B and D articles were vandalised this afternoon." Please revert them on sight if you suspect vandalism. Keep an eye out for ALL subway articles, especially those vandalized by Sept. 9th, 2006 subway changes. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to protect those vandalized pages again, which includes and B and D train, the R40s, R68s, R68As, and New York City Subway rolling stocks. The Legendary Ranger 15:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of these articles had a {{sprotect}} but were not protected. Only admins can protect articles. Gimmetrow 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I sprotected the above article, and placed the notice on the pages that didn't have it. If there are more (please make sure they have been vandalized first) PLEASE place an {{sprotected}} notice on it and leave me a list of the pages on my talk page, and I will protect them as soon as I can get to it. -- Cecropia 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If need be, you can always drop me a note too. I haven't been as active in NYCS recently, but I'm ready to semi protect should the need arise again. alphaChimp(talk) 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem guys, glad we can stop this vandalism by working together. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you tell me that only the adminstrators can protect the articles, Gimmetrow. The Legendary Ranger 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, non-admins can sprotect articles, but only admins can protect articles. Don't get the two confused. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What!? Non-admins cannot semi-protect articles. The protect tab is the only way to actually protect an article. alphaChimp(talk) 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought they could, but then again, I thought so. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. You're refering to the addition of the protection template, which anyone can do. The actual technical ability is a tab that appears at the top of all admins' pages. alphaChimp(talk) 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you forgot to protect the R160B subway car article. The Legendary Ranger 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting those articles were not a good idea. I think we ought to protect those articles indefinetely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are concerned about the subway articles, but we should not protect the pages forever. If that was done all over the mainspace, then what would be the point of having editors then?

I do agree, however, that IP users shouldn't be allowed to edit; they cause too much problems. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Station Listing table

Last time, I conducted an experiment to see if anyone liked the new table I made. Apparently no one did because of the verbosity it contained. I have made a few new adjustments. Please view the table and see if you like it. I have made brand new changes so the table might work this time. Please view this page to see if you like the new table.

  • First, I used templates instead of words to describe when the trains run.
  • I no longer show bus connections, unless they are buses heading to airports (similar to how the R142s do it, they don't show every bus route except for airport-bound buses, so we should do this too)
  • I put breaks between line templates, so they won't be piled together and make the table too wide to read

That is mostly it. With the changes I made, I hope we can agree on the new table, containing new changes made, as well as implementing old ideas from the current one.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A few questions:
  1. What problem are you trying to solve? This version is certainly much better than the last version you offered. But how is it better than what we have in the articles now?
  2. There are two formats for the station table. Those describing lines are different from those describing services. Which one are you proposing to replace? (Note that the IRT 42nd Street Shuttle is the only case in Wikipedia where the line and the service are in the same article.)
  3. I definitely don't like having the station name in the second column. The station name is the most important column, and should be at the left. In our current layouts, the Access icon is usually the left column, but that column is so narrow that it doesn't matter. Putting "All Times Except Late Nights*" in the left column is the wrong way to go. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I want this table to reflect the same one as seen on the MTA page, so it is obvious that the table will replace (probably) the current one seen on services.

Note: You know those symbols that are used on the MTA page, that depict what time of the day trains run? If possible, I want to upload them so that we can use them. Those symbols can replace the text that actually defines what the symbol mean. Maybe I should try making this table more robust, like putting a new service, such as the 5, to make the table look bigger and this will give us a good idea on how the new table can benefit. But let me know what you think of uploading those symbols; this will help us get further into detail.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the table seen at my sandbox (click here), to make it show when 5 trains run. I stopped at East 180th Street, but the table seems worse than before. Putting text that shows when trains stop at a specific station doesn't seem to work, just like what Marc said. This is why I want to upload those bullets seen on the MTA website and make those substitute the text. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd has decided to leave Wikipedia. More information on why he left can be seen on his user page. I myself am verry sorry to see him go, but no one can control his decisions but him. This is irrelevant from the WikiProject, but he made timeless contributions here trying to keep the WikiProject strong. He made his last edit on his userpage, and officially signed off. I hope, however, that he will still read our discussions to see how we are doing, and might, just might, come back and edit again. I myself would like to thank him, except he won't respond. But I wish him good luck outside of Wikipedia, and hope whatever he is doing is worthwhile, From Imdanumber1 at WikiProject New York City Subway,...


GOODBYE MARC SHEPHERD

--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everyone (myslef included) is REALLY busy in real life, and can't really "give" all their time at the moment. The project might be quiet for a few months. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I, fortunately, won't be as busy as everyone else, because most of my contributions occur during weekday evenings and all times on weekends, since I am at school during the rest of the day, and sleeping at night. But with another gone contributor, I hope the WikiProject doesn't fall apart. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It won't fall apart. The articles are still here, and our watchlists are still here. We have 2-3 sysops. We should be fine. alphaChimp(talk) 04:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It will just mean we will have to work harder than ever. It seems me and Pacific Coast Highway are the only non-admins here. Don't worry, we can still move on and continue, even if one of our best-valued editor is gone. WE WILL PREVAIL!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So, about my new table...

Last time, I made a proposal to make a new table, in order to make it reflect the table used at the MTA website. However, it was turned down, due to the verbosity and because of other issues that would make it undeemable for use. HOWEVER, I have made a few adjustments. I have uploaded some bullets that denote when trains run, called denotations, because it substitutes text. Marc Shepherd agreed with it. (By agreed, I mean beause he's no longer here, because he can't agree with it if he's no longer here.) Anyway, I have made countless numbers of changes and, well, see below.

Subway Service Information

Station service legend
Stops all times Stops all times
Stops all times except late nights Stops all times except late nights
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops rush hours only Stops rush hours only
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Stops rush hours in the peak direction only
Time period details
Disabled access Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Disabled access ↑ Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
in the indicated direction only
Disabled access ↓
Elevator access to mezzanine only


5 Stations Subway Transfers Connections
Bronx - North of East 180th Street to Eastchester-Dyre Avenue
Stops all times Eastchester-Dyre Avenue
Stops all times Baychester Avenue
Stops all times Gun Hill Road
Stops all times Pelham Parkway
Stops all times Morris Park
Bronx - North of East 180th Street to Neried Avenue
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Nereid Avenue
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only 233rd Street
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only 225th Street Metro-North Railroad
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only 219th Street
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Gun Hill Road
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Burke Avenue
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Allerton Avenue
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Pelham Parkway
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Bronx Park East
Bronx
Stops all times East 180th Street 2
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		West Farms Square-East Tremont Avenue
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		174th Street
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		Freeman Street
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		Simpson Street
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		Intervale Avenue
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		Prospect Avenue
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops all times except late nights 		Jackson Avenue
Stops all times except late nights Third Avenue-149th Street 2
Stops all times except late nights 149th Street-Grand Concourse 2 4
Stops all times except late nights 138th Street-Grand Concourse 4 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1a2345}}
Manhattan
Stops all times except late nights 125th Street 4 6 Metro-North Railroad, M60 (to LaGuardia Airport)
Stops all times except late nights 86th Street 4 6
Stops all times except late nights 59th Street 4 6 N, ​R, and ​W
(F and <F> with MetroCard)
Stops all times except late nights Grand Central-42nd Street 4 6 7 and <7>​ S Metro-North Railroad
Stops all times except late nights 14th Street-Union Square 4 6 L N, ​Q, ​R, and ​W
Stops all times except late nights Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall 4 6 J and ​Z
Stops all times except late nights Fulton Street 2 and ​3 4 A and ​C J and ​Z
Stops all times except late nights Wall Street
Stops all times except late nights Bowling Green 4 Staten Island Ferry
Brooklyn
Stops rush hours only Borough Hall (northbound only) 2 and ​3 4 N, R, and ​W
Stops rush hours only Nevins Street 2 3 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}} 4
Stops rush hours only Atlantic Avenue 2 3 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}} 4 B and ​Q D, ​N, ​R, and ​W
Stops rush hours only Franklin Avenue 2 3 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}} 4 S
Brooklyn - South of Franklin Avenue to Flatbush Avenue
Stops rush hours only President Street
Stops rush hours only Sterling Street
Stops rush hours only Winthrop Street
Stops rush hours only Church Avenue
Stops rush hours only Beverly Road
Stops rush hours only Newkirk Avenue
Stops rush hours only Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College
Brooklyn - South of Franklin Avenue to New Lots Avenue
Stops rush hours only Crown Heights-Utica Avenue 2 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1}} 3 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}} 4
Stops rush hours only Sutter Avenue-Rutland Road
Stops rush hours only Saratoga Avenue
Stops rush hours only Rockaway Avenue
Stops rush hours only Junius Street
Stops rush hours only Pennsylvania Avenue
Stops rush hours only Van Siclen Avenue
Stops rush hours only New Lots Avenue B15 (to JFK Airport)
  • *Some rush hour trips to/from Utica or New Lots Avenues, Brooklyn.


This is the new table I created at my sandbox subpage. The table shows stations that are served by 5 trains. Notice I uploaded images of subway denotations that replaces text, so the table won't be verbose. I am also underway of creating a category for these denotations, which I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons (you can upload a bunch of stuff there).

I hope you like the table, and maybe, just maybe, we can agree on it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The table above has been replaced with the svg-style, which makes it look better.

The table looks nice, but two things:
  • Should we retain the current Disabled access (which has wide accpetance and usage) or replace with the blue one? I'm sorta neutral on this, but just bringing it up.
  • And how do we deal with the 4 beyond Utica Avenue? Do we use side by side symbols to describe both the late night and rush hour pattern? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That is something I never thought of. HOWEVER, since the MTA map says some rush hour trips to/from New Lots Avenue, notice at where it says Station Service Key, after "Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction", there is an asterisk. After the table at the bottom of the page, the asterisk defines, "In compliance to stations that aren't served during rush hours in the peak direction, they aren't served during late nights either." And really, since congestion determines whether 2, 4 or 5 trains go to/from New Lots Avenue during rush hours, then the late night denotation wins. We can always add an asterisk to define what it means at the bottom. Thanks for addressing that though.

And also, since the MTA uses the blue one, WP:NYCS should too, as it is on MTA nomenclature. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the blue icon is limited to the website. On the map, the one I suggested is used. I also feel that if possible, ALL service patterns should be noted. Maybe that can be accomplished with side by side symbols. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 03:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that awkward. I don't think we should use side by side symbols; only one. Whichever symbol that sees more service than the other is the one that should be used. For example: the 5 train sees service during rush hours in the peak direction between 3rd Avenue and East 180th Street, but not during late nights. Same thing for the 4 train south of Utica Avenue. During rush hours in the peak direction, 4 trains see little service there, but more of it during late nights. One would be better than using two. But if it conflicts, say so below the table. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then that'd mean there would be a "note" for almost every service. And those icons, where did you get them? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
One option is to create our own hybrid icons... e.g. Stops all times except late nights and rush hours in peak direction Stops all times except late nights and rush hours in peak direction – flamurai (t) 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

MTA. But I saved them as images and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh. We might run into copyright issues using them, since they are copypasta from the MTA's website. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. Since the subway bullets were probably uploaded from the MTA, and we haven't had trouble with those, then we might not have trouble using these denotation icons. The tag that says, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", are used with the subway bullets, as well as the denotation icons. So I think we are safe. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I would like to get opinions on the table so it can meet everyone's requirements. Marc Shepherd likes it, and Pacific Coast Highway has some concerns to it as well. I am still working on some stuff. I want to get everyone's opinion on the table before I hold a consensus. For questions, just contact me. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is actually when everyone agrees (or at least a large proportion of people agree). As for the table, I see no really major issues, asides from the copyright issue raised by PCH above. The issue primarily revolves around the fact that you uploaded them. You've cited your tags in your explanation, which is essentially a self reference. That said, I suspect that these would be either public domain (as you said) or fair use. I imagine Transit would not have any significant issues on the posting of these images.
Let's make sure we're perfectly clear on the copyright issues. Then I'd love to proceed. Alphachimp 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly clear with the copyright (public domain, fair use, etc.) for images. They need licensing, or they will be deleted. I have licensing for these images so there is no need to delete them. Since these have licensing (PD), I am sure we should be fine.

That said, I am clear with copyright. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You have licensed the images? No, no, no. You only applied a tag to an image you uploaded. Licensing is an agreement between the rights holder and someone who is requesting those rights. If you entered into a specific agreement with NYCT, that'd be another story. The deletion thing you refer to applies to images uploaded without copyright rationale. Alphachimp 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I got them confused. I keep getting things mixed up here, first with protecting pages and semi-protecting, and now with licensing and PD tags. I've GOT to get my head in the game here.
Anyway, that said, as I have uploaded other images, such as fair use (feel free to check my log) images and PD, I think we are all clear with the icons' copyright issue. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't currently have the time to present a complete argument/thought/etc., but I would like to remind everyone of "Wikipedia is not a timetable." From what I've seen, the reason presented for replacing the current service table with this one is to mimic more closely the table presented on the MTA website. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to simply reproduce other sources of information. Adherence to the MTA style is simply not a sufficient reason to do this. The table is becoming somewhat more complex, as images are added and such, for no real reason. Introducing these images requires introducing a legend. Then there is the issue of having to use multiple icons. All for the sake of stylistic conformity? I am yet to be convinced. What is the functional improvement here? Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that we shouldn't slavishly imitate the MTA's table, but I am somewhat officializing it more. And what does "Wikipedia is not a timetable" have to do with this? That doesn't make sense.

Larry, from my last proposal, you said the table was too verbose. It isn't now, so what problems is it making now? Can you give me a more legitimate reason? If you have any thoughts, let me know. We can work this out. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What Larry meant was that putting up those thingies would a akin to a schedule, which is generally frowned upon here and is unnecessary (based on the essay linked in the comment). Another concern that I have is even though the MTA uses that image system, does not give us free right to go mimic them (not to mention the "grey area" reguarding the copyright of the service symbols). Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
All we're doing is replacing information that we already have in the tables as repeated phrases with icons, which is a good idea from an information presentation perspective.
In terms of execution, we should have both alt text & rollover infomation. This may make a legend unnecessary, but we could avoid clutter by making the legend have a DHTML show/hide function.
As for the second concern, they're so simple they're public domain. I'm not sure whether software copyright laws would apply to the image files themselves, but I've recreated them in SVG so that doesn't really matter anymore.
– flamurai (t) 10:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well, we haven't had any problem until now with this with the copyright, and until Larry came up with "Wikipedia is not a timetable". And I know that we shouldn't have to mimic their table, but making the table more robust would be a major improvement. It reduces the words, which makes the table clear, concise, less verbose, and for the most part, easy to use. The table currently seen on the subway service pages doesn't meet this table's requirements/standards, from my opinion. We use symbols to define when the stations are served by certain train routes. PCH made a great suggestion to use more than one symbol to combine when a station isn't served by the train route at certain times of the day. What I am saying is that, I am disagreeing with you Larry, what would make Wikipedia a timetable would be using a format seen in MTA's timetables (respectively) showing that during certain times of the day, there are a whole bunch of time listings that show when people should expect a train to reach their station. That said, the symbols have nothing to do with making Wikipedia a timetable, and that is what makes people miss the point. Using time listings that show when a station is served by a route would make Wikipedia a timetable; symbols are a whole different story. They replace text; I don't see anything big with using symbols instead of text. The late Marc Shepherd didn't see anything wrong with using symbols. He said that it makes a big difference and reduces the amount of words so people won't have to literally read the table. Some non-Wikipedians I know would actually go with it. Using a format of the MTA's table would make it familiar because if people ever use Wikipedia and put up a search for the NYCS services, they can easily recognize the table because the format is similar to the MTA's, where people that see the MTA's table also agree that it is easy to use. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs)

P.S. To make sure that there is no copyright issue with using the symbols, I will ask them to see if the images have any copyright issues behind them. It is only fair, and we can get copyrighting behind us so we can proceed. That said, the discussion should resume tomorrow, since the MTA takes a day to respong to queries.

The copyright status is the only issue I have. Other than that, plow ahead. (And hoping for the one day response, you do realize this is a weekend, right?) Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean it will take longer on a weekend? Well, they DO reply, sooner than usual. Let's hope that they will let us use their images. Then we can proceed. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the SVG subway bullets. Fonts are not copyrightable, and adding a circle with a color around a letter is not enough to create authorship. These symbols are also so simple that they are probably public domain. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to commons, let me know. – flamurai (t) 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created some SVG icons, but the Wikimedia SVG->PNG renderer is having trouble with them right now. This one works: File:NYCS Denotation (All Times Except Late Nights).svg I made the default size slightly smaller (12px vs. 16px) to fit with the standard font size, but since they're SVG they can be resized without quality loss. – flamurai (t) 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my version of the legend. (The all except late nights bullet is the wrong size because of the render bug.) If you know anything about how to implement show/hide in Mediawiki, let me know. – flamurai (t) 11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Station service legend
Stops all times Stops all times
Stops all times except late nights Stops all times except late nights
Stops late nights only Stops late nights only
Stops late nights and weekends Stops late nights and weekends only
Stops weekdays during the day Stops weekdays during the day
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops rush hours only Stops rush hours only
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Stops rush hours in the peak direction only
Time period details
Disabled access Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Disabled access ↑ Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
in the indicated direction only
Disabled access ↓
Elevator access to mezzanine only

An example showing only the items above (there's a little bug with the spacing... gotta look into that)

Station service legend
Stops all times Stops all times
Stops all times except late nights Stops all times except late nights
Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Stops rush hours only Stops rush hours only
Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Stops rush hours in the peak direction only
Time period details
Disabled access Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Disabled access ↑ Station is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
in the indicated direction only
Disabled access ↓
Elevator access to mezzanine only

Usage: 

{{User:Flamurai/NYCS icon legend
| alltimes        =
| allexceptrush   = 
| allexceptnights = 
| nightsonly      = 
| nightsweekends  = 
| weekdaysonly    = 
| rushonly        = 
| rushpeak        = 
}}

Good suggestion, Flamurai; This doesn't look bad at all! Keep up the good work!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid icons

Can someone help me make a list of the hybrid icons we might need, such as the "all but nights and rush hours in peak dir" icon? – flamurai (t) 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Flamurai,

I definitely think we are getting somewhere now. I do have a sandbox subpage, and I have changed the new table there and added your new bullets. However, I would not endorse slicing half of the all except rush and all but night bullets and merge the two halves together. Pacific Coast Highway made a good suggestion to use more than one symbol. Besides, not all of the train lines have the same service pattern, which would make the merged one you proposed redundant, and less commonly used. The "symbol-under-symbol" configuration, that Pacific Coast Highway suggested, is what I would do. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also deleted the old table above and replaced it with the SVG-style bullets and legend. Good work, you couldn't put it any better, Flamurai. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We should also create templates so we can replace the image names with {{NYCS all times}} as seen on the table when one is editing it, and vice versa. I will work into this. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The templates will also help make sure the "alt" text is correct for all the images. However, do we want to do this with one template and a parserfunctions "switch" statement (like {{NYCS}}), or separate templates? – flamurai (t) 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I implemented the "switch" method at User:Flamurai/NYCS/NYCS station service icon. e.g. Stops all times I don't really like the term "denotation" since it really doesn't say what the icons describe. The MTA term is "station service", which distinguishes it from just service. If "station service icon" is too wordy, we could make a redirect from "NYCS SS" or something. Once we finalize all this, I'd like to reupload the icons with shorter names (e.g. NYCS-SSI-alltimes.svg) and have the old ones deleted. – flamurai (t) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, shortening the names would be fine, just add summaries once this is done so people can know what they mean. Just one thing:

When we create the templates for the icons (icons is a better name, instead of denotation), starting with "NYCS", should we use numbers ({{NYCS 18/7}} or ({{NYCS all day}}) to substitute "all times except late nights"? I'm neutral on it, but I want to see what you would decide on. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Take care of renaming the images to shorter names, have the old ones deleted, then I will delete the GIF images I originally uploaded, then we can work on the template naming convention for the icons. THEN the new table just might have a new home on the pages after consensus. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:User WP:NYCS

Hey, I've created Template:User WP:NYCS. You can feel free to add it to your userpage. If you'd like, you can make any modifications to it if you want. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My recent absence

I'd like to apologize to the members of this WikiProject (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) for my recent inactivity on Wikipedia. I recently started my freshman year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an exceptionally large volume of schoolwork has severely restricted my available leisure time. I will try to return as I become accustomed to the academic program here. Thank you for your patience, everyone. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you back, Larry. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You just started college, Larry? The Legendary Ranger 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I just started in September. =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hex codes in the navbox

I support the usage of hex codes in the navigational box. I don't see why not. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Colors

These are the colors I used for the bullets. They're based on the printed map (not the PDF map... those colors are not correct because of color space translation from CMYK to RGB). Colors are really inconsistent from sign to sign, from station to station, etc. – flamurai (t) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Link: User:Flamurai/NYCS colors

Station naming, again

I feel that we need to (yet again) come to an agreement to how we name stations. I have said this over and over, but I will repeat myself: THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL NAMES FOR ANY SUBWAY STATION. The reason I say this is because the map may interpret the name one way, but may write it differently on another part of the SAME map. And schedules tend to have thier own variant. And not to mention station signs that decide to come up with extended names.

Another part of this issue is that if we are to use these so-called official names on the map, then can someone explain how we are merging complexes together with some made up name, nowhere on the map, schedules, or on station signs? Paradox, anyone? Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that there are no official names for stations, but what gets me started in situations like this is when station signs get outdated. Unless you aren't aware, a lot of signs have been hanging in place since the 1980s, some yet to be updated. The map, along with accessibility and names are current as of October 2006. The map is the first place where accesibility and names are updated. It takes a while for people to change names in the subway, and sometimes, they are forgotten. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: Even SPUI's and nycsubway.org's maps follow (nearly) the same naming convention as the MTA's map. It just goes to show how things can get out of date.

Color in the NYCS line templates

Any good reason not to add appropriate line colors to the NYCS line templates? Let me know. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Color in the article text is tacky, unprofessional, and draws too much attention to what's being colored. I'm against it. This is an encyclopedia, not a timetable. – flamurai (t) 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: An example is changing B to B. Surely I see nothing wrong with that. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I think it's tacky. Stick with the defined link colors in the article body. – flamurai (t) 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we oughta just leave the colors they way they are. Using colors that match their lines are very distracting and people will have a hard time finding thier lines. Also, the yellow color for the BMT Broadway Line is too light to see clearly. The Legendary Ranger 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Subway Service Information table consensus

I guess it's finally time that we have a consensus on the new subway table. It's been two months, and I think we are ready to decide its future. A lot of work has been put into it, making SVG icons (thanks to Flamurai), a new legend (thanks to Flamurai), to name a few. Therefore, I would like to thank Flamurai for reviving the table, because if it wasn't for him, I'd be stuck. I would also like to thank PCH, for minor (albeit helpful) ideas as well, since you two actually tried to help while others opposed it without trying to implement ideas. I really hope everyone votes support, however, since time and hard work definitely went into this. Voting ends Friday. Thanks!

Support

  1. Support. I would like to be one of the first to vote support on the table. As a lot of time and work went into it, it's ready. For the most part, though, I thank Flamurai for his ideas and for reviving the discussion. Because there were some people opposed to it, I wasn't sure what to do. But Flamurai jumped in at the right time, getting rid of the copyright issue by creating SVG icons, and improving the table and legend syntax. Therefore, the table is ready, and with that said, thanks Flamurai. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I believe this makes the tabular data more concise. – flamurai (t) 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support; Issues have been adressed and dealt with. I couldn't be more happy. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support My apologies for being less active recently. I'd support the new table. It's obvious you guys have done a lot of good work on the table, and I certainly commend you for that. Alphachimp 22:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolution: As of Friday at midnight, Support has prevailed! I thank everyone for voting, and I hope everyone has had a Happy Thanksgiving. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I prefer the original black-on-transparent SVG ADA icon strongly to the current white-on-blue GIF, and my support vote on the poll was only in reference to the service icons. – flamurai (t) 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have said this once before. And I'll say it again, revert to the original ADA icon. The current blue on white one is horrid and the other one worked better in a small situation. This icon does not. Pacific Coast Highway {Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!} 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I only used the blue one because the MTA table used it too, but you're right; the regular one works better. If we can create a blue SVG icon so it can render better, then that would be cool; otherwise, we'll use the regular one. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If something is ever wrong, just say so, but no need to be pushy about it.

Haha, pushy's kind of the style on WP. It's just that these mass edits take time, which is the whole point of getting consensus in the first place. – flamurai (t) 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice you didn't change all the articles yet. I think now we can use the bullet graphics in the header row. I noticed in 5 there is a huge space between the stacked bullets... we have to solve that. – flamurai (t) 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sorta noticed that over time. People are aggressive, but things do need to get done. Also, there was a huge space between the bullets on the 5 page, but it wasn't there before. At least it's solved.

Also, that blue icon was terrible, since it's GIF and it rendered badly, so if we can create a SVG blue icon, that'd be great, otherwise, we'll stick with the regular one. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Handicap reverse blue background.svg (Damn that renders better than I expected... I think the strokes are exactly 1px, or very close.) – flamurai (t) 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll add them on, if it is okay with PCH. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the blue icons. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NYCS templates

Since Cyde brought it up originally, I was thinking if we should carry out the switch method he proposed. I noticed that we have a template called {{NYCS}} that we can use for the subway services. We can create a template called {{NYCS line}} so it can be used for the lines. Using these, we can use the switch method, or something like that, which will create {{NYCS|5|1}}, producing 5 {{Subst:NYCS Time|1234}}. We could also do this for different line sections, creating {{NYCS line|Lexington}} producing 4, ​5, ​6, and <6>.

Then again, a lot of articles and the infobox will have to be edited and reconfigured, but it would be necessary to use the switch templates to reduce the overload of templates at the WP:NYCS category page. Thoughts? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by the overload? Do you mean that we have too many templates like {{NYCS A}}? Alphachimp 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but using a switch template would reduce the "overload" so we won't have too many service templates. I tried to implement this at {{NYCS}} but there are currently some issues that I am running into. For example, not all services use {{NYCS Time}}, but I don't know how we can hide it from the lines that don't have it. I, for now, am stuck. However, I do want to put this into effect. What should I do? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a good idea to convert dozens of templates into one with a huge switch statement. What should be done, however, is converting all of the simple templates (like NYCS A, NYCS B, etc.) into a universal NYCS template that would look like {{NYCS|A}}, {{NYCS|B}}, etc., and could be done without a switch. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two special cases:
  1. Diamond services, e.g. <6>
  2. Defunct services, e.g. AA
I think having two parameters a la NYCS is not the best solution because the most linked services won't need both parameters. I see three solutions (note all templates could have optional time parameters as well):
  1. A "basic" template, e.g. {{NYCS|6}}, that takes one param, and a second that takes two params, e.g. {{NYCS|<6>|6}}, {{NYCS|AA|A}}
  2. A "basic" template and a rush-specific template, e.g. {{NYCS rush|6}}. Defunct services would rely on redirects, e.g. {{NYCS|AA}}
  3. One template using named parameters, e.g. {{NYCS|6|rush=yes}}; {{NYCS|AA|link=A}} (note time would become a named parameter as well {{NYCS|A|time=abcd}}
Basically, by eliminating the individual templates we are sacrificing convenience in these two special cases. – flamurai (t) 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the {{NYCS}} template covers all of the cases seen above.

  1. See, the first parameter is for the Subway service, and in some cases we have to type the shuttle service out, therefore typing {{NYCS|S - 42nd Street Shuttle|S}}, rendering S.
  2. The second parameter is just like producing 5 (New York City Subway service), but we add a pipe to create an abbreviation. In this case, we would be typing in 5, and omitting (New York City Subway service). In some cases, we can create a diamond service, typing {{NYCS|7|<7>}}, rendering <7>.
  3. The third parameter is an "if" parameter, meaning if the {{NYCS Time}} is needed, we won't have to type another template, but instead we add another pipe, and type in the appropriate code, and it will be rendered. Example: Type {{NYCS|7|<7>|1a2a3c}}, and it will render <7> (1a2a3c).

This is only anecdotal, but this template could (possibly) replace the following templates if an agreement can be made:

  • Replace all of the other subway service templates.
  • Replace the {{NYCS Time}} template, since it will become redundant, therefore using the regular wikisource code by typing <small><sup>[[List of New York City Subway services#Time periods|({{{1}}})]]</sup></small> in the {{NYCS}} template instead.

That's my proposal. This is what I am with right now, which will make it easier to use, and therefore being able to get rid of the other 26 service templates if an agreement is made. (Spaking of NYCS templates, the cat page needs cleanup, as we have some templates unused...we gotta look into that.) --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the uses on WP will just duplicate the first parameter. I'm just trying to make it easier on us. And personally I think we should use the redirects for older services like AA since theoretically someone could create articles on them in the future. – flamurai (t) 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_3&oldid=1084186394"