Template talk:NYCS const

Assignments vs Lines served
This template causes the route designations in the "Services Assigned" line of info box for car types to not be editable. For instance, on the R62 page, it says that there are 250 cars on the (3), and 10 cars on the (1). That may be the service assigned, but I think the article should reflect lines served, adjusting the line to reflect what lines the train car types are currently running on. I do not want to change anything without knowing what I am doing first, so what I would like to know is, how can I adjust its template so that the route designations on that line of the train car info box can be changed? Thank you. 107.150.180.158 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you deleting the (1) train info at all? It has a source, TheJoeKorner. Don't update the assignments until that spreadsheet is changed. 157.150.62.35 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP at the beginning. If TheJoeKorner is self published, then why is it being used as a source? The R62s run consistently on the (3) service, not on the (1) service. The article should be reflecting day to day operation. Although the source may say there are 10 cars on the (1) service, that is not what is carried out in daily operations of the system. 72.226.15.68 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the second IP, for the reason that it is basically a primary source, or a secondary source with access to primary information. Private website doesn't necessarily mean self-published. epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason the first IP may have a point is that if the article does not reflect day to day operation, it would contradict what people see in the system. If on any given day, the assignment did not necessarily correspond with the operations on that day, then that should be edited in the template. When the second IP referenced TheJoeKorner as this article's source, it should take that source with a grain of salt as it may not be reliable. 72.226.15.68 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You do realize it is impossible for articles to reflect day to day operation because they change daily. Cars get shuffled around a lot and a certain fleet that is normally not assigned to a particular service can run there if needed due to an emergency or construction reroute, car breakdown or yard shortage. We're not going to change this every time a random train pops up on a service it normally does not run on. 173.3.77.129 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @173.3.77.129 and 72.226.15.68: Yeah, and I agree with the second IP (kind of) because this reflects the normal barn assignments. A random train popping up on a service it's not assigned to (e.g. the occasional R160s on the R route) would be an anomaly, but it happens sometimes due to train shortages. But the current data reflects what are supposed to be assigned to this service.
 * @72.226.15.68: Also, why did you bring this up at WP:RSN? This is basically a content dispute, not a dispute over the reliability of the source. epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Color descriptors
Where did the color descriptors originate? 'Apple Green' seems like a very poor fit for the hue used to denote the Lexington Ave. line. If that's an editors's take, we should remove it as OR, but if it's official, we should cite it as appropriately. So far, all I've found is the MTA Colors page. Thanks! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't think these colors have official names. The RGB coordinates are rgb(0, 150, 57) and the Pantone name is PMS 355. As far as I can tell, these color names came from New York Times article in 2010. epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the link, and these are the official colors.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you are endorsing the "MTA colors page" on MTA.info, which gives hex, Pantone, and CMYK specs for each color swatch but offers no names for said colors? If so, I agree that it is definitive. I'm happy to have seen the Times column that Epicgenius provided above, but I don't think that fluff piece establishes its claims of (what are mostly bizarre and misleading) color names as being "official". —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  22:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a crack at simplifying the names and I stripped out the links. If have other suggestions for differentiating the two greens and the two greys, let me know. I did my best to pick options that roughly aligned with examples at shades of green and shades of grey, but nothing really matched the G's green. A Google image search for "apple green" turned up a lot of greens very close to the MTA's online sample, so I went with it. —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  18:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger of similar contracts
In the latest update of the Joe Korner, there is half of a R160B train and half of a R160A train assigned to the Q. For sure, the Q does not run 5-car trains, so I suggest that similar cars be merged, particularly the R68/A, and the R160A 5-car/R160B trains. I understand that the Joe Korner has the "official" assignment list, but it seems that similar cars are usually treated the same through some kind of MTA standard. If we merge assignments of similar cars, we could actually solve other conflicts too - not only will the Q show a logical number of cars, but also similar cars that occasionally pop up on lines they are not assigned to (referring to R68 (not R68A) A's, and R68A G/N/W's) can be somewhat accounted for more easily. Mtattrain (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Exact amounts of trains assigned to each service.
One thing I don't exactly get is why, on individual car pages, the exact amount of cars assigned during rush hour service is shown. Wouldn't it suffice to just show the lines that the cars are assigned to, sans the quantity of cars assigned to the line(s)? Mtattrain (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think that it is OK to include the number of trains used on each service. The information is sourced and I don't see a good reason for removing it. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to bring this discussion up again. MTA consistently deviates from the noted assignments, so in my opinion it's a bad idea to have a fixed amount of trains indicated for each line. Mtattrain (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

December Car Assignments + R46/R160 swap
Here are the changes with the December 2019 car assignments and yard assignments, per Peter Dougherty's Track Map Book. The AM assignment for the A has gone down from 39 to 38, while the AM for the 7 has gone up from 36 to 38, and the PM has gone up from 34 to 37. The 42nd Street shuttle has gone down from 3 to 2. The number of R62As at Livonia has gone up from 20 to 22, and 2 are back at Corona for work service. The number of R46s at Pitkin has decreased from 388 to 356, and the number of R179s is up from 50 to 90. At Jamaica, the number of R46s has gone up from 364 to 396. The problem is, I do not have the exact figures of cars per subway service, so I am not sure how to change the assignments for the A.

Second, the long-awaited R46/R160 swap has started. I have been waiting for this for at least three years. Due to delays in the R179s and changes in Canarsie, this has repeatedly been pushed back. There are no reliable sources to mention this yet, but keep an eye out.

Once the semester is done I hope to get back to regularly editing. I am taking six classes now and have projects/papers in five of them. Stay well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have as many finals, but am still pretty busy nonetheless, so I might revisit this later. Good luck in your classes! epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

would either of you be opposed to using the bulletin to temporarily show that 46s are on the G/N/W/Q - without exact quantities - instead of the F/R, before a source of the latest car assignments is made available? Mtattrain (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * > A source was made available, scratch that. Mtattrain (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Accessible
Shouldn't we have a field for fully accessible stations? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kew Gardens 613, probably. That would likely have a limited use case but would still be helpful for a few articles. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)