Talk:R1 (New York City Subway car)

Untitled
Anyone have any opinions on splitting this article into 3 articles accessible from a dis-ambiguaiton page?? Georgia guy 13:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me. I've been linking to R1 (New York City Subway car) for a while, to make the eventual split easier. --SPUI (talk) 14:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I finally moved the page and made a dis-ambiguation page. I put the info on the motorcycle into its own article as well, but the third use I don't see enough info for it to get its own article, and so I just left the substubby info on the dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy 23:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - looks good. --SPUI (talk) 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See discussion at: Category talk:New York City Subway passenger equipment

I have been editing to the best of my ability many of the pages regarding the various types of NYC subway equipment, inserting additional information as well as correcting that which I know to be personally wrong (I have been the NY Division Bulletin News Editor for the ERA for over 20 years.) With this category, I see a problem as this particular type is broken up into 5 or 6 contracts on different pages. It would be cumbersome and frankly unnecessary to insert the same information on each of those pages. Much of the technical information applies to the entire fleet and they were run as a unified fleet, broken up by assignments not necessarily according to contracts. Having them broken up on different pages by contracts makes as much sense to me as breaking up the A/B Standards by 2000's, 2100's, 2200's, etc., or the Low-V's by 1916, 1917, 1924, 1925 groups, when each of them were basically the same mechanically and operationally.

There are other contract groupings involving almost exactly similar cars that should be combined as well, but the problem that I am outlining with the R-1/9 series is more serious, and I feel that it needs to be looked at if more editing is to be done. As there is very little except for the most minor differences between each contract group, and the bulk of the information would apply to the entire fleet, I am herein requesting that an all-encompassing page for R-1/9 cars be set up, so that this work may properly be facilitated. The same then might ultimately be considered for such groups as R-12/14, R-17/21/22, R-26/28, R-29/33/36, R-62/62A, and on the other division, R-27/30, R-68/68A.

Please let me hear from someone in this regard. I hope that I am using the right format for this request.Alger3041 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Alger3041