Talk:Main Line (NJ Transit)

Lead section
I think the lead section of this article should be re-written, specifically, it should state that the Main Line is a railway, before saying anything else. Although it is clear by reading the entire lead that it's a railway, this does not make for easy reading/understanding and is not standard for lead sections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Line description template
Hi, I made a line description template here Template:NJTransit-Main (displayed at right). Please comment and correct as needed before adding to the article. See also Template:NJTransit-Main-Bergen. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added to article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This will be incorporated into the Temmplate:Infobox rail line I will be inserting into this article. --AEMoreira042281 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Reading the Port Jervis Line article, and keeping in mind the above template made, I am proposing a merger between that article into tjis article. --AEMoreira042281 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation, please?
I need a full explanation why the images in the article keeps being removed. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me  23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Line plan
Is there any reason the line plan on the main page does not work? It shows coding but doesnt make sense. the map on this page seems fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.10.238 (talk • contribs)


 * It looks fine to me (using Firefox 2). What browser are you using? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording
I am having trouble following some of the history. I don't know if is because I am not from the area or what, but is anyone else going through this. There is a sentence that mentions two different things being abandoned that runs on for a while. Leefkrust22 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is part of the main line discussion truncated out?
The Pascack line is an interstate line; it is not split into two articles. Yet an editor attempted to remove material pertaining to part of this route, the historic main line of the Erie Railroad, hence its name. Just because some trains end at Suffern does not mean that all commentary on the route beyond Suffern must be eliminated.Dogru144 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it reflects the modern ownership exactly, as NJT's ownership ends at Suffern, while Metro-North's lease (from Norfolk Southern) runs between there and Port Jervis. The articles are organized to reflect the here and now, while still showing some of the history. But they're are about the modern services, not he historical railroad. Above you responded to a seven year old merge suggestion that was long ago declined on the Talk:Port Jervis Line page. It's so stale that responding to it is silly.
 * There's also the fact that your edits were factually incorrect. The yard referred to in the restored text is the Suffern Yard, which is under the Thruway overpass. It is nowhere near the Port Jervis Yard, over 50 miles away, and nowhere near the Thruway. So they needed to be reverted for that alone. But the core issue still remains that for a long time now, there has been a long-standing consensus to have a separate article for the Port Jervis Line, and historical information only relevant to that portion west of Suffern belongs in that article, not this one. oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I deal with your argument below.Dogru144 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not recall making the Suffern Yard statements that you claim I say.Dogru144 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you need to more carefully edit, as every time you reverted, you re-added the incorrect statement that the yard in Port Jervis was beneath a Thruway overpass. They're nowhere near each other. I have corrected this once more. oknazevad (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The historical statements are pertinent to the present line too. The Erie Line did not end at Suffern. It constituted all of the line from Port Jervis to Suffern to Hoboken. As stated below, all of the line, save the modern cars, are from the Erie RR line. There is no legitimate reason to exise this history from the article.Dogru144 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Erie line may not have ended at Suffern, but the NJTransit line, which is the topic of this article, does. Do not confuse the historical forerunner with the present day topic, please. oknazevad (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedence for single articles for interstate lines administered by multiple state transit agencies
Wikipedia deals with history also. This is the repository for this (i.e., this article deals with the Erie Main Line which consists of the present right of way, trackage, bridges and station structures). The present article is not only on the Main Line, but also on the Erie Main Line, which went far beyond Suffern, in fact beyond Fort Jervis to Chicago. The fact that there is an intermediate train yard in the vicinity of Suffern is immaterial. The line goes to Fort Jervis. That is that. You assert that there is a long standing consensus. That is debatable. There is at present another NJ Transit line that is an interstate line: the Pascack Valley Line. Do you insist that that article be two articles too? In about two years there will be the interstate line to the Poconos, Pennsylvania. Will you insist that that be two separate articles also? Metro North has interstate service from Grand Central to New Haven and Danbury. Do you insist that those lines be dealt with in segregated articles? Only when states do not cooperate and run a joint operation (e.g., the separate SEPTA Philadelphia to Trenton and the NJ Transit Trenton to New York Penn Station lines) is it warranted to have separate articles. This is going to an edit war, so this should go to arbitration.Dogru144 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that the Port Jervis Line is treated as a separate service by Metro-North and NJ Transit, unlike the New Haven Line or, most notably, the Pascack Valley Line, which is owned for it entire length by NJT. That's not true of the Port Jervis Line. It is extremely relevant that New Jersey Transit does not own the Port Jervis Ljne, as they are legally separate entities. They may have been one line once, but no longer.
 * Yes, Port Jervis Line trains continue on to Hoboken using either the Main Line or the Bergen County Line (often times the latter) but they are not considered Main Line or Bergen County Line trains (notice the completely different train number scheme for the Port Jervis trains in the schedule). Yes, some make varying numbers of stops in NJ, but that's because NJT gives Metro-North a discount on those trains. So they are distinct and separate enough to warrant separate articles.
 * Your analogy to the South Shore Line above is flawed as well; the NiCTD owns all South Shore Line tracks, and only accesses the Metra Electric District via trackage rights; that doesn't make it a joint operation at all.
 * And finally, the Poconos service is not starting in two years, if ever. The only construction even done so far is for a short extension entirely within New Jersey and any service to Pennsylvania is at least a decade away, and that's only if Pennsylvania ponies up the money. oknazevad (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, pending the result of a requested move at Talk:New Jersey Transit. epicgenius ( talk ) 22:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Main Line (NJ Transit) → Main Line (New Jersey Transit) – To conform with the main article, New Jersey Transit. Optimally, the disambiguator should be the full name, "New Jersey Transit," or the full abbreviation, "NJT." Another NJT line article, River Line (New Jersey Transit), is at the full name. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support; per WP:CONSISTENCY. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Insertcleverphrasehere, and per Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) and Central Branch (Long Island Rail Road). While you're add it, do the same with West Trenton Line (NJ Transit). And if I'm not being redundant, keep the old names as redirects, though. -User:DanTD (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The old names automatically become redirects when the articles are moved to the new names. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything, we should go the other way and move the main article. Not only does the agency itself always use "NJ Transit", so does the local media, including [northjersey.com] (Bergen Record), [nj.com] (The Star Ledger), [newyork.cbslocal.com], [abc7ny.com], [fox5ny.com] and even The New York Times. In spoken word, though only my observation, the "NJ" is used slightly more than "New Jersey". In short, "NJ Transit" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and should be used as the title of the main article. (Convenient that the snow storm here has lead to every one of these sources mentioning the agency on the front page!) oknazevad (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with moving New Jersey Transit if "NJ Transit" is the common name, but we'd also need to move New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, and New Jersey Transit bus fleet. epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. But that's not that big a deal. If we move a parent article then moving the child articles is pretty automatic. It's not like redirects won't exist after the moves, so we don't even need to change links, per WP:NOTBROKEN (barring double redirects, of course). oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm for whatever maintains WP:CONSISTENCY. I see a case here for the use of NJ Transit over New Jersey Transit in the original and related articles, but whichever outcome is decided on that idea should dictate the outcome for this (and subsequently, the name of River Line (New Jersey Transit)). -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the consistency principle. It just seems to me that looking at the evidence the consistency should be going the other way, and the "NJ Transit" is the common name. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. Being that a broader discussion about wether the main article should be at "NJ Transit" appears to be needed before any subsequent articles (and categories) are appropriately moved per WP:CONSISTENCY (in either direction), might I suggest that this move request be withdrawn so we can have a discussion on the broader proposal. oknazevad (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I second this – if New Jersey Transit should be moved, that discussion needs to take place first; then we can worry about these kinds of article titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support consistency. Either move this article, or move New Jersey Transit to NJ Transit.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NC and LIRR precedent. &mdash; c16sh (speak up) 22:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

So I was asked to provide an update on to the proposal to move the main article to NJ Transit. I haven't made such a proposal yet as I've been waiting on what feedback I'd get at this discussion. that is to say, I wanted to see if others might support such a move before formally proposing it. The problem is, I don't see any clear guidance. , the proposer on this move, never commented on my proposal to withdraw the move and have the broader discussion first. Indeed, he just boldly moved West Trenton Line (New Jersey Transit) to that title. So if like to hear further from him. Meanwhile, and  only gave vague mentions that the titles should be consistent, without commenting on the merits. I'd like to hear their opinions as to the actual merit of moving all to "NJ Transit" based on what I mentioned above. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on whether New Jersey Transit should be moved to NJ Transit, because I'm not familiar enough with the particulars. I was just suggesting that this RM be tabled until a discussion of New Jersey Transit vs. NJ Transit take place and be resolved first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also not knowledgeable enough to have a strong opinion, but you do make a good case for "NJ Transit" above.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a consensus for consistency. If people want to, we can have a RM on all articles that have "New Jersey Transit" in the title; then, I can withdraw this. epicgenius ( talk ) 14:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be worth it until we settle the question at the main article. Depending on what develops there, we can change the sub articles after.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so should I withdraw this? epicgenius ( talk ) 18:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so. Meanwhile, I'll open the discussion at Talk:New Jersey Transit using the sources I mention above. oknazevad (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Main Line (NJ Transit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325034114/http://www.ho-ho-kusboro.com/Additional%20Historical%20Data%20from%20Master%20Plan2.doc to http://www.ho-ho-kusboro.com/Additional%20Historical%20Data%20from%20Master%20Plan2.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)