Template talk:New York City Subway

BMT: numbers?
Why are the BMT trains shown as numbers? If this is some internal subway designation it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please make them the regular route names (when you click on "1", for example, under the BMT it takes you to the Q train). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlastOButter42 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'll note, those numbers are given under "Unused/defunct." Those numbers are the designations that the BMT used to use for its routes before Unification. Prior to Unification, the BMT Brighton Line was served by the BMT 1; currently, it is served by the, which is why the link to BMT 1 goes to the article for the Q train. &mdash;Larry V (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort order
Could someone clarify the current sort order ( N Q  R  W  • 1  2  3  • L  • G  • A  C  E  • 7 • 4 5 6 • <span style="color: #">J <span style="color: #">M <span style="color: #">Z • <span style="color: #">B <span style="color: #">D <span style="color: #">F <span style="color: #">V ) please? It would appear to the casual reader that <span style="color: #">1  <span style="color: #">2  <span style="color: #">3  • <span style="color: #">4  <span style="color: #">5  <span style="color: #">6  • <span style="color: #">7  • <span style="color: #">A  <span style="color: #">C  <span style="color: #">E  • <span style="color: #">B  <span style="color: #">D <span style="color: #">F <span style="color: #">V • <span style="color: #">G • <span style="color: #">J <span style="color: #">M <span style="color: #">Z • <span style="color: #">L • <span style="color: #">N <span style="color: #">Q <span style="color: #">R <span style="color: #">W , or a straightforward alphanumeric ordering, would make more sense, so they are arranged this way for a reason. What is the reason? Chris cheese whine 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Colors
Why have colors been added to this navbox? The line letter should not be represented with colors, for reasons already given here. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've posed the question of colors to WT:NYCS. I see no unanimous decision there. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Other NYC transit
This section does NOT belong there, because it is not related to the NYC Subway. I am requesting a consensus on this before deleting it from the navbox. AEMoreira042281 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I have added a free-use picture to the template, taken by contributor The Port of Authority. This is not a copyrighted picture. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Other NYC Transit
Section is meaningless. 70.23.53.169 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Small Change
This template consolidates the information. Currently it would seem that S is just a sort of throwaway instead of an actual service of NYCS Here is my idea: <pre style="overflow:auto"> -<span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:navy;border: 0px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:white; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:navy"> A  ML -Talk-Cont-Count


 * S (New York City Subway service) is not a throwaway, because that page lists all the previous shuttles as well as the current three. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you support my idea or saying that the current blue Shuttles link suffices? -<span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:navy;border: 0px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:white; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:navy"> A  ML -Talk-Cont-Count  —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
 * No I don't support your idea. The three shuttles look better on their own line apart from the rest of the services. They don't take you anywhere, they just connect you to the mainline services. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally, as a matter of layout, I prefer the shuttles seperate. Putting the plain text links to each shuttle article in the top section breaks up the layout too much and looks sloppy. That said, I wonder if having the "S" icon only once, by the general S (New York City Subway service) link on the left would look better and more concise while allowing the general article to stand out more.oknazevad (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I had in mind (pre-updated to reflect the service changes, which kick in at the end of this week, iinm. ):

<pre style="overflow:auto">
 * This is an excellent idea to remove the three icons and replace with one at the beginning of the line. How about moving the icon to the right of the word Shuttles? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the icon on the left only because the three icons are on the left in the current box. But I do think the icon first looks better, as the word "Shuttles" appears as a label for the icon, and standard design puts the label after the icon. I also made it a subgroup under current services, because they are current services. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, I flipped the historical shuttles and former BMT designations as well, as the shuttles follow the pattern of the still-in-use system and a that makes it mirror image of the current labels above.
 * On the other hand, the ex-BMT numbers are a potentially confusing historical curiosity. As noted in a question above, none of them actually link to a dedicated article, but instead go to the modern service that is closest in covering the same route. This could cause confusion for unknowing readers and introduces multiple redundant links. I honestly think they ought to be dropped from the navbox outright. oknazevad (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! Even better. Although there are many other historical curiosities in the navbox too, so I say leave the BMT numbers in. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll swap in this new version on Monday when the service changes take effect, unless anyone else has any suggestions.oknazevad (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How to show the H
The temporary H shuttle is a replacement for a portion of the A. So, we have to move the H from the Unused section to the Services section, but not to delete the link to the Rockaway Park Shuttle. I will try to do it. Vcohen (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The temporary H shuttle is intended to service the entire Rockaway peninsula while the trestle across the Jamaica Bay is being reconstructed. This trestle will be out of commission for a while since a lot of the structures and land its on was washed away (right now its will be back mid-2013 at the earliest but knowing the MTA this will probably get pushed back).  The H stops at one of the Rockaway Park shuttle stops and will stop at more as the restoration work continues.  Note the main MTA page will now has the H Train as one of its routes --Darkhunger (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The bottom line is there currently is no Rockaway Park Shuttle, period, while there is an H train, and not just as an internal designation. The navbox reflects this. "Temporary" has a habit of becoming permanent, and even if the old service pattern is restored, it won't be for many months. This isn't the same as a weekend service change and should be reflected in the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To Darkhunger: I understand what you say, but you are speaking about future. As of now, we have only one station shared by the H and the RPS, it is not enough to say it's the same route.
 * To oknazevad: I agree with all that you say here.
 * By the way (it doesn't affect my position), both of you say the MTA has included the H on its website, but I cannot find it there. This is what I see:
 * 123	Planned Work
 * 456	Good Service
 * 7	Good Service
 * ACE	Planned Work
 * BDFM	Planned Work
 * G	Good Service
 * JZ	Planned Work
 * L	Planned Work
 * NQR	Planned Work
 * S	Good Service
 * SIR	Planned Work
 * Vcohen (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to go to the ACE link to see info about the H shuttle. I don't think we should change the navbox to include an H because it is indeed only temporary and more likely than not, it will be discontinued when service is restored. Changing the navbox for temporary changes violates Wikipedia's policy of not being a travel guide. Also, the MTA has not printed any official maps nor updated the subway pages on their websites to reflect these changes. Therefore, I have reverted the edits User:Darkhunger made to the navbox. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you don't see it, but the H is listed right under the current service status on the left side of the MTA homepage. Therein lay the problem with a blanket revert; the H is not an unused label and yet this navbox currently says it is. It also lists the Rockaway Park shuttle as a curren service when it is not. It's one thing to worry about WP:NOTTRAVEL, it's another to put out inaccurate information when it's easily correctable. In short, as the H train is an "until further notice" situation, it should be included in the navbox until that further notice; to do otherwise is an inaccurate misrepresentation. oknazevad (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, if I click on the ACE I get the following:
 * A No trains between Howard Beach-JFK/Broad Channel and the Rockaways
 * H Shuttle trains and free shuttle buses provide alternate service
 * It means, again, that the H replaces a part of the A, not of the S. Vcohen (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It replaces both the A and the Rockaway Park Shuttle in the peninsula. The A does not generally serve Beach 90 Street, which is a full-time shuttle stop.--Darkhunger (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The span between Beach 90 and Beach 67 doesn't belong to any of the regular routes. The H only enters Beach 90 to make a terminal station, because Broad Channel is unusable. However, I believe they will extend the H as the stations to the west are repaired. Vcohen (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * UPD. Hammels Wye has only one track from east to west. Trains enter 90th St on one track and run back. If the route is extended to the west, there will be a trouble with this one-track segment. Vcohen (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To ‎Frietjes: You say, "if you want H to point to A, then change the redirect". Unfortunately, it's impossible. The H is, first of all, the internal designation of the Rockaway Park Shuttle, and all its history is the history of that shuttle. Therefore its redirect must go to the shuttle. Now, temporarily, the letter H is used for a temporary route that replaces a part of the A, but it is not a reason to change the redirect and ignore the whole history of the H. Vcohen (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * per WP:EGG, the link to H should go to H, not to A. if I click on H, I want to read about H, not about A.  if I wanted to read about A, I would click on A. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, we have a real trouble. Redirects are not recommended in navboxes, we have to directly link each label to its article, like 8 labels in this template that go to J/Z (New York City Subway service) or 5 labels that go to Unused New York City Subway service labels. I hope you don't intend to change all of them.
 * On the other hand, it's desirable to let the reader know that the H has different meanings. We don't know which of them he wants. For that sake we can convert the H (New York City Subway service) page to a disambiguation page leading to two articles, both about the A and the shuttle. Vcohen (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be sending the reader to A, when they click on H. The only reason redirects are not recommended in navigation boxes is outlined in WP:BRINT. However, bolding doesn't work for section anchors either, so I think we can ignore WP:BRINT and go with WP:NOTBROKEN. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  20:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If somebody clicks on the H label, he is expected to get to the article about the H. Am I right? But the current H replaces a part of the A route and is described in the article about the A, while the H article redirects to the shuttle. Vcohen (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect should point to a place with information about H. If this needs to be a disambiguation page, then so be it. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vcohen (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Made change to your disambiguation page - the "H" train was used as designation of the Rockaway Shuttle - the current service pattern did not come into being until the "H" was changed into "S" and it exclusively provided service for Rockaway Park. The "H" train used to serve the entire peninsula at certain times of the day when the "A" train didn't run there, which is why I will continue to disagree with your rationale that the new train "replaces the A", because it is basically a revival a portion of the old "H" train Round-Robin service, which the Rockaway Park Shuttle article covers extensively.--Darkhunger (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Vcohen (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Elevated lines
I don't find the IRT Ninth Avenue elevated in this template, and I believe this is correct - it was not succeeded by a subway line (except, if memory serves, some track in far northern Manhattan was repurposed). Hence I don't believe Ninth Avenue derailment belongs here, unless the template is to be renamed to include the non-integrated elevated lines in Manhattan. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You won't find any of the NYCS lines here, because their list is long and there is another navbox built especially for them. Vcohen (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. But to me that means the Ninth Avenue derailment article shouldn't be in this navbox either, nor in Category:New York City Subway accidents; two editors have so far disagreed. I believe it was the only serious accident on the pre-subway els, otherwise a separate category would be a logical way to go. I think when I finish my work shift - I'm running out of break time - I'll look at the navbox you mention with a view to adding it there instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This navbox includes everything related to the NYCS, including its history and excluding its lines. All the lines, both existing and former, are in the second one. Note that the second navbox includes lines only. Vcohen (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now; I had thought you were referring to a navbox about the els. And you are the editor who incorporated the Ninth Avenue derailment article under subways; I hadn't looked at the name. It occurs to me that this may be a nomenclature problem: with you thinking Subway (system), whereas when I categorized the article I was thinking subway (class of mass transit), and still am. The accident is included in various books on the New York subways, but always with the note that it was not actually a subway accident; this line was always entirely aboveground. I think the reader is likely to be as puzzled as I am that it should be classified as a "subway" accident, missing the significance of the capital "S" as I did - am I right that that is the operative issue in your mind? The other editor stated that the line was included in the navbox, which compounded my confusion. I'd like to hear from some other people on this, or have you explain your rationale if I've figured wrong - it still seems less than useful to me to make it appear we are classing it as a subway accident. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole system is called the NYC Subway, although it includes different types of stations, such as elevated, embankment, open-cut and at-grade. The history of this system includes elevated stations and lines as well. Vcohen (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are indeed thinking system rather than type of line. I'd still like to hear from others - this line is only tangentially associated. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's listen to others, of course, but look at the History of the New York City Subway article. Note the word Subway in its title, and the fact that it covers the IRT Ninth Avenue Line and other elevated lines that don't exist now. It is not my personal opinion, but the terminology accepted across all the articles and templates related to that system. Vcohen (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. The word Subway is used in NYC instead of Metro. This may have confused you. Vcohen (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The IRT Ninth Avenue Line was an elevated line, which was considered part of the subway when it was open. All the elevated lines were integrated into the subway system starting in 1904. It's just like the IRT Third Avenue Line (a former elevated line, whose whole length, and later its Bronx section, was considered a subway line until demolition); the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line and BMT Fulton Street Line, which were a former elevated line with parts of each of them repurposed into subway lines; and the BMT Jamaica Line, which was partially built as an elevated line.
 * By the way, Yngvadottir, the reason why the IRT Ninth Avenue Line isn't linked in this template is because the link belongs in NYCS lines navbox. Epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

History
The Mass Transit Super Bowl article should be moved to the History section, shouldn't it? Vcohen (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be outright removed. The Super Bowl had little to do with the Subway, and was far more important to NJ Transit. And frankly the article should be merged with Super Bowl XLVIII, as its entirely too detailed for an encyclopedia, and had very little lasting impact, making the entire article a clear case of outdated WP:RECENTISM. The same is true for the link: No long term significance.
 * Some of the other stuff here can possibly be said to have that issue as well. While notability is not temporary, there is a tendency among the press and the people to treat things that happen in NYC as bigger deals than they actually are because of the size of the city. But in the long run many of those things have little long term impact and their lasting importance is not that great. Some of the incidents in the navbox, for example, are not essentially to understand the NYC Subwat as a subject. They shouldn't be included, and only the general list article should really be linked. The navbox has become bloated with I essentially items. It's time, I think, for a trimming. oknazevad (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How to show the subway ines
Would it be best to sort the lines by color instead of alphabetical order? It may make much more sense visually to the wikipedia reader to see it like this. If nobody gets back within a week, I may do it myself. RES2773 (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773
 * No, that wouldn't be best, it would be confusing. It would be also violate accessibility principles. Fitnr 02:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely understood, can you give me a link to the accessibility principles? Thanks RES2773 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773
 * WP:ACCESS. oknazevad (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

1985 vs 1979 as cutoff for modern era of defunct lines
I made an edit which changed the cut off point for the two groups of defunct designations from 1979 to 1985. It was reverted, and I have since changed it back. I don't think it really matters which cutoff we use, however many of the routes listed under the defunct pre-1979 group were in existence from 1979-1985. If people want to keep using 1979 as the cutoff, I have no objections, however if we do, the AA, CC, GG, LL, QB, and RR must be moved into the post-1979 group. (I don't really feel strongly about this, but I suggest that if we do decide to make 1979 the cutoff, the double letter routes put into the post 1979 box should be formatted consistently with the other routes there too.)

MrLincoln (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. The elimination of double letters in 1985 is a good reason for that cutoff date. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)