User talk:Acps110/Archives/2011/May

&larr; March 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 &rarr;

R68 on the G
About the R68 on the, you reverted my edits claiming that my ref is not a reliable source. While message boards are generally not reliable sources, if you look at the ref, notice that there are actual photos of the R68 on the G posted there. I don't see why photos are an unreliable source, as I highly doubt the image was photoshopped. ANDROS1337 TALK 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. So long as there is no evidence of doctoring, clear and obvious photos should be able to be used as proof, but not of any controversial subject/BLP issue. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that the R68s are just temporarily on the G train. Until we have a reliable source such as a car assignment sheet then it can't be added. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Line" is appropriate terminology for subway services
I realize the nomenclature page on wikipedia disagrees with this, but the term "Line" is used to describe subway services in press, in day to day use, and by the MTA itself. See following URL: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=090227-NYCT32 for an example. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because the MTA wants to use what the customers are familiar with. "Line" and "Service" are the technical descriptors for physical lines and operational routes, respectively. Using "train" in place of "service" is perfectly acceptable, I think. (that's what most people in NYC use). &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of that. My point is that if the MTA uses the term "F Line" to describe the train service which runs from 179th Street to Coney Island, then the term "F Line" is proper terminology. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling a service by the slang term "1 line" just serves to confuse. Here on Wikipedia, a line is the physical railroad and a service is the train that travels over it. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is- such terminology is not a slang term, It is the proper term! I don't see why any wikipedia group should be against using official terminology. Wikipedia should reflect the real world, not disagree with it. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example: the functional head of the 7 train's title is the "7 Line General Manager". 98.14.158.206 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Queensboro Plaza, and "station complexes"
I'm not really sure Queensboro Plaza merits the "complex" status. For instance, Seventh Avenue, which has a similar service pattern (two levels, each line serves both), isn't considered one. And—more importantly—using  removes the "Station succession" header from the infobox. The logic probably went like this:
 * 1) A station complex usually has multiple distinct stations.
 * 2) The article will have separate sections for each station.
 * 3) Each station will have its own infobox.
 * 4) Each sub-infobox will have "next north" and "next south" for its respective line.
 * 5) The main infobox on top (the one with  ) won't have "next north/south" info.
 * 6) Thus, we should hide the "Station succession" banner.

So having QBP be a "complex" means its station succession info gets put in the "Traffic" section, which is just awful. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * TL;DR – I don't have any religious beliefs about what "station complex" really means. This is all about the infobox. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

&larr; March 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 &rarr;