Talk:R142A (New York City Subway car)

Untitled
Discussion moved to Category talk:New York City Subway passenger equipment Bobblewik 20:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
R142A (New York City Subway car) → R142A – There is no reason to disambiguate the page, per WP:DAB. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what about route 142A ? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Route 142A" does not exist, a link to List of highways numbered 142 is enough. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So someone forgot to create the redirect. The list shows that the route exists. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:R160 (New York City Subway car) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Do you think that we should merge this article with the R142 article, because, like the R160's, they are very similar, so maybe we can discuss them collectively, and leave in the part with the differences between the two car types, and name the new page, R142(A) (New York City Subway Car).ManofQueens (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Merges

No. R142A’s and R142’s are completely different from each other (propulsion, manufacturer, design, etc). No need for the articles to be merged if they are completely different from each other. 2600:1001:B012:5326:5CE3:67B1:CA0B:6DF8 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to merge the two articles. I believe that the See Also section is good enough. RandomUsernameNumber83 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My LCD sign contribution (as replacement) - Sign routing
Recently there's been some controversy based off of my most recent contribution, which is a new image for the R142A subway car's side destination LCD signage. Now, the reason I added mines over the current reverted image is because of the lack of people that are present in the image, as I feel it's a change that is appropriate for a Wiki page. Now, I also made sure that the sign was in relatively good condition when I did take this particular shot. However, where the issue comes from is not from either of those things but rather from the routing of the sign itself. The image displays a "5" routing which is is not listed under the operating routes of R142A's. However, while I do understand this, I want to make the argument that it is not an issue that is as severe as it has been made out to be by another contributor. While it is a different route, I feel what matters within the image is the LCD sign itself being displayed. The page lists what specific routes these cars operate on, and what the LCD sign says doesn't have to specifically say one of those operating routes - but rather giving more attention to the quality of the image and the sign itself, as well as an empty interior. I'll retract my argument if this image that I have contributed is against any Wikipedia ruling or guidelines, I would like to be notified. However, I do not feel like reverting my contribution and then proceeding to block my editing privilege's by another user was valid in any sort of way if I did not get anything answered. EmperorOfNYC (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

PATH PA5s?
Our PATH (rail system) article says, under Rolling Stock, that their PA5 cars, the entire current fleet, are "updated versions of the MTA's R142A cars," but without a clear reference. The dimensions given for the PA5's are close, but not identical to the R142A and they are made by the same company in the same facilities. If true, there should be some mention here, ideally with information as to the similarities and differences.--agr (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)