User talk:Acps110/Archives/2010/March

&larr; February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 &rarr;

About the station disambiguation articles
Hi, good idea about writing the station disambiguation articles. A few notes, though: —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They may be tough to find, because a user would need to hit on the right combination of spaces and hyphens to get a direct hit, but I supposed Google and Wikipedia's search features are up the challenge. This isn't a suggestion, just a note to point this out.
 * It seems to me that these articles relate to those "stations" that were separate stations on separate lines that are now connected internally so that one can walk from one track or set of tracks to the other without leaving the system first. It would be useful to readers to have a concise explanation of this in the articles. Right now it isn't clear why such-and-such long name can refer to what seem to be two or three separate stations, or what the implications are.
 * The name refers to the stations—the stations don't refer to the name. I've reversed the "refers to" sentences in a couple of the articles.
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. Tinlinkin and I recently split the List of New York City Subway stations out from one enormous, hard to render page to a parent page and the four boroughs. He wanted a disambig section to show all the duplicate names throughout the system. I've been picking away at the individual pages over the last few days, trying to get rid of all the redlinks in that section.
 * The more difficult names are a result of the argument; "How many stations?" The MTA insists that there are 468 stations, but most outside organizations doing the counting come up with 423. The difference is the station complexes that are made up of several individual stations with a common fare control and interior passageways between them. Not all of those complexes have their own article, and I wanted to get rid of the multiple links in the Station complexes section of the parent page. The WikiProject New York City Public Transportation is very lightly staffed right now, or I'd suggest merging those. I don't think I can get the support, because of the unwieldy names that result from the project's naming convention.
 * So, my disamb page creation is doing two things. First, consolidating the station complexes section; second, creating pages for all the duplicate names throughout the system.
 * Lastly, sorry about getting 'em backwards! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅! Thanks for your help! I've reversed the intro sentence in all the pages and I've added your suggestion to the station complexes. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible new articles
Hi. I was just wondering if you had an opinion on something, as one of the editors in this subject area. I've found a treasure trove of New York Times articles on the history of the extensions of Seventh Avenue and Sixth Avenue, and I was wondering if they might be worth articles of their own. What do you think? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As short as the existing articles are, you should probably just add your information on the extensions to them. I don't know that I would think to look for a link to the extensions, so I might not find those new articles. I checked the history of both pages and your edits to Seventh Ave. look really good! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution is to make the Sixth and Seventh Avenue articles longer? There's a lot more that could be in each of them. Then there might be merit to an article on the extensions at some point. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Make them longer, more informative and better referenced until someone says "Please split this article." Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: R55 (New York City Subway car)
Hello Acps110, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of R55 (New York City Subway car), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Next stations
I believe the next station services should say only what services are available from the current station. That's because Template:Infobox NYCS does not use the traditional infobox succession that is used in Template:Infobox Station. So, for example, the links to other services in the next station from Grand Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) other than B and D are irrelevant to the Grand Street article. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being bold to the IND articles. I think it's obvious in the infobox that only a particular set of trains serve a station. I was adding services to the next station where tracks merge or diverge. That way, people can understand what trains they will find at the next station on the same set of tracks or the same level. Following your example at Grand Street; When arriving at DeKalb, you will find the trains; likewise at Pacific St . Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not what I mean. If you look at succession boxes for stations in general, for each service at the current station, they list the succession of stations from the current station. That's why I say the other services are irrelevant. To be clearer, instead of NYCS next, the succession box would be:

  Broadway – Lafayette Street ''toward 145th Street or Bedford Park Boulevard  IND Sixth Avenue Line   DeKalb Avenue ''toward Brighton Beach

  Broadway – Lafayette Street ''toward Norwood – 205th Street  IND Sixth Avenue Line   Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street ''toward Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue

 IND Sixth Avenue Line   DeKalb Avenue ''toward Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue

<tr style="text-align: center;"> <td rowspan="1" style="vertical-align: middle; border-left: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; border-right: 1px #aaa solid; border-top: 1px #aaa solid;"> Broadway – Lafayette Street ''toward IND Eighth Avenue Line, IND 63rd Street Line or IND Queens Boulevard Line <td rowspan="1" style="border-left: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; width: 8px; background-color: #FFFFFF"> <td rowspan="1" style="vertical-align: middle; border-bottom: 0px none;">IND Sixth Avenue Line <td rowspan="1" style="border-left: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; width: 8px; background-color: #FFFFFF"> <td rowspan="1" style="vertical-align: middle; border-left: 1px #aaa solid; border-bottom: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-top: 1px #aaa solid;"> Myrtle Avenue (closed) ''toward BMT Brighton Line or BMT Fourth Avenue Line


 * This would be the format that's suggested by S-line, the standard rail station succession template. (To implement this in the NYC station articles will be a lot of work.) It's nice to know DeKalb and Pacific have those services; but the succession is set up to suppress that information and that should be consistent across all articles. Think about a local station. If the following station is an express station, that's nice to know, but that particular sort of information is better served in that following station's article. I hope I'm clear here. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, using the S-line template would be a LOT of work for the NYCS articles. Wow, it's huge and chunky too; no wonder it doesn't fit in infoboxes. After more thought on this situation, I've come up with an alternate solution.


 * How about something like this? (Using the nolink attribute you recently showed me)


 * &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;


 * I'm trying to bring the merges into the station succession. Diverges are handled well now, but merges are not even mentioned in the previous station's infobox. This combines the station succession (which was lost in my current version) with what trains are found at the next station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still feel too uncomfortable with the additions. They break precedents, as well as the common expectations for a straight-up station succession. Tinlinkin (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Got any better ideas about how to convey a merge's information in the previous station's infobox? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to do. I have said it's irrelevant to include trains that serve neighboring stations but that don't serve the current station; that info is also out of the ordinary in any kind of succession, not just train stations. Unlinking the services doesn't help either. (A reader should know what those letters stand for.) I suggest raising the issue on the WikiProject talk page if you still disagree. Thanks for reverting your edits while we discuss. Tinlinkin (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

add Edit Summary to System Message
I have a suggestion for improvement to the System Messages. When reviewing a past revision (example), a red bar appears at the top of the page listing who edited it and when. Can it be amended to the following? (Everything in parentheses is a variable.)

I find it very difficult to figure out which revision I'm looking at without the edit summary shown. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This would probably require consensus, so maybe post at MediaWiki messages. In any case, just use the diff to see your changes and edit summary, much more effective.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I didn't know where to post the question. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AirTrain
Dear Sir: I'm new to "talk pages" and had no idea about this and did not get a message until today that extensive edits I made to the JFK AirTrain entry had been rescinded. I also didn't know the meaning of the Edit Summary, as the purpose and the instructions are all but buried in the website in comparison to the ease of actual editing. In all candor, I don't know what you meant by contending the changes were "unconstructive." I added a lot of difficult-to-find and current facts such as ridership statistics, and quite a few results from my numbercrunching to the page so readers have more information about the history and the reasons AirTrain. I also provided new and heavily significant information about its finances. To be sure, I am a critic of the AirTrain, but the facts and the numbercrunching speak for themselves and I have not used perjorative terms or other wording to express opinions. Between you and me, the AirTrain entry is basically a Port Authority press release, with old information from 2006, that accentuates the positive and eliminates the massive, massive, massive negatives associated with this particular railroad. I was under the impression that the Port Authority itself had deleted my edits and resubmitted the original piece. Accordingly, I protest the reversion of my entries and ask that my edits be restored. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That reversion was no reflection on you, just the quality of the edit. It seemed to have a very harsh tone and was NOT neutral-point-of-view. I admit I have a bias against IP editors, so I tend to scrutinize those edits more than a registered user. The edits just looked like typical vandalism that comes primarily from IP editors. If you check out the article history you will see that after your edits on March 8, Jfruh reverted those as well with the same concern of NPOV. (See also Help:Page history.)
 * I am not interested in restoring your edits as they existed. Please reconsider the tone and NPOV.
 * My suggestion would be to register for a user name and then take your concerns to the Talk:AirTrain JFK page. If you can't get a response there after a reasonable period of time, you may also take your concerns to the Wikiproject Trains, Wikiproject Rapid Transit or Wikiproject New York City Public Transportation talk pages listed at the top of that talk page.
 * Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are mistaken about my piece not being NPOV; it is exactly the same as what was there before, with the previous writer opining AirTrain was a "success" and me opining it was and is a failure -- a point I went on to fully document by detailing its financing and the sources of my infomration at a later time. These subsequent edits were apparently deleted without so much as the courtesy of a notice.


 * I think that a harsh tone is merited for this failed overpriced experiment -- and Wikipedia permits comments like mine all the time when there are assessments. Assessments are the essence of truth seeking.


 * Perjorative remarks are used all the time too. For instance, this quote on the Paris subway, "These new lines were inaugurated in 1977 and their wild success outperformed all the most optimistic forecasts to the extent that line A is the most used urban rail line in the world with nearly 300 million journeys a year."


 * What's the difference between negative remarks that can't stak and positive remarks that are bluster and bogus?


 * I also don't think there is "vandalism" if the material is informative and documented.


 * Anyway, your suggestions about various alternates to make my point are very difficult to understand. I am a very, very occasional user of the system, and have no idea what a "talk page" or an "IP editor" is.


 * I figure you have to assume that most of us occasional contributors have little or no idea what you are talking about when it comes to internal remdies. I find it helps to start at the beginning.


 * It would also help if you didn't bring any biases to the task (whatever you said about being biased about IP users, whoever they are) should not be part of the task at getting to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates not showing in Google Earth
First thanks a lot for fixing my accidental deletion of the last section of Myrtle Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line). It came as a surprise to me that Google Earth doesn't display templates, or even that it used Wikipedia at all, but now I notice that the popups gadget doesn't display them either when it displays the first section of an article (just like G.E.). So they must be using the same interface to Wikipedia. Now that I think of it, this omission must be deliberate; it excludes the infoboxes and the templated boilerplate like “This article needs cleanup...” etc. Perhaps there is some magic word (like the used in Myrtle Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) to effectively end the opening section) that can say that it’s OK from this point on to render templates in this popup interface? Hgrosser (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all fixing your accidental deletion at Myrtle Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line). Google Earth displays everything up to the first section header, so the Myrtle Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) pop-up is currently showing most of the article, with some bold text errors and omitting the Gallery section. For another example, Marcy Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) is showing the very short intro section before the History section header. Unfortunately, Google Earth only updates from a database dump about once a month. It can take considerable time before changes show up. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing that I forgot to mention: if you want to replace a template, don’t use the  keyword — it will insert all the gory internal code of the template,  's, etc. Instead, use the Special:ExpandTemplates page – it can convert the entire section at once. Hgrosser (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! That's really cool; I didn't know about that page. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you an admin?
I need to ask a question, if you are. Thank you! (24.62.126.170 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * - Replied on talk page. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

23 Street station
hi there,

do you know what happened with this part of the station File:23 Street IRT 1904.jpg? I must have missed it or something... cheers. Gryffindor (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't. The closest thing I could find was this (The Original 28) on Forgotten-NY. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

&larr; February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 &rarr;