Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 June 9

= June 9 =

Flushing line
How do they move trains between the Flushing Line and the rest of the IRT if needed? From the article, the only connection the line has with the rest of the network are the crossovers to the Astoria Line at Queensboro Plaza -- but that doesn't really help because IRT trains have a different loading gauge than those on the BMT (of which the Astoria line is part) and IND, and neither the Astoria line nor the lines to which it connects seem to have any other connections to either the Broadway-7th Avenue Line, Lexington Avenue Line or 42nd Street Shuttle. So how can it be done? 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a shame you Geoloacte to Burlington County, NJ. If you were in NYC you could dial a 311 operator and get, at worst, the number for the relevant museum or fan club.  I suggest you simply call 311 from a NYC area code cell phone or the next time you are in NYC.  μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In this case, geolocation is dead wrong -- I'm actually on the west coast (although I was in New York recently)! 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The S train (the Manhattan one of course) is connected to the 123 trains and the 456 trains. The yellow trains are connected to the blue trains at Queens Plaza etc. and the blue trains are connected to the red trains around World Trade Center. (you can see the freaking red train station from one of the blue train stations in the area as it's practically the same line, despite how it looks on the map. This is just a proof it's possible, there are other ways I know of and likely some I don't and I don't know which of the ways to do the transfers you're interested in are actually used (besides Queensboro Plaza). The numbered trains' loading guage is narrower and the trains are slightly shorter so that's not a problem because the employees boarding the trains aren't retards and can deal with a little gap. They couldn't make a revenue train do that because of liability issues (and inconvenience to people with strollers etc.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But what I'm asking is, how are the 7 trains connected (directly or indirectly) to either the 1,2,3 trains or the 4,5,6 trains (or the 42nd Street shuttle)? BTW, the map for the "blue trains" (Eighth Avenue Line) shows that its tracks are actually NOT connected to the "red trains" (Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) near the World Trade Center -- is the map wrong? 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Maps showing the passenger services on a line will not show every service rail which connects the main route to workshops, sidings, yards and other lines. Two lines which only appear to cross each other on a service map may actually have tracks allowing movement from one line to the other - but as no passenger services make that connection they do not appear. Wymspen (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To be sure I haven't actually tracked the tracks around World Trade Center so maybe the crossover doesn't exist despite the closeness (they're parallel and in the same tunnel at one point) but I found 207th Street Yard. Maybe they link up there, as it's used by both colors. The red and green lines definitely link up in Brooklyn and the Bronx, in case the Shuttle track(s) leaving the east terminus and the track(s) leaving the west terminus aren't the same tracks and don't connect. I'm doing this from memory and there's so many tracks on the S (mostly dead end tracks, though this used to be a continuous line (the absolute first, from 1904)). I have heard that there is a way to get from every subway track to every other subway track and there is I think only one way to get to anywhere in the North American rail system (which is presumably how they'd arrive from the factory in St. Louis or Toronto). A normal train would probably stop by the suburban commuter railroads at latest but the maintenance trains could theoretically leave the subway and go anywhere in the continent with standard gauge and diesel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I forwarded this query to Michael Wares, a friend who's a knowledgeable transit fan in New York. First, he says it's not correct that at the World Trade Center "you can see the freaking red train station from one of the blue train stations".  What it actually is is that if your train is going to the WTC terminal platform on the "blue" (IND) line, you can see the through platform on the same line.


 * As to the main question, Michael says:


 * Flushing to BMT Astoria/60th Street Tunnel line at Queensborough Plaza. Heavy maintenance on Flushing trains is done at the Coney Island shops, so equipment transfers might go all the way down there.  Otherwise, 60th Street tunnel, Broadway, bridge or tunnel to DeKalb, change ends, bridge to Chrystie Street connection to either 6th or 8th Avenue to either Washington Heights or Concourse lines.


 * There's a connection from the 207th Street yard (Washington Heights) to the IRT Broadway north of the 207th Street station; and from the Concourse yard to the IRT Jerome Avenue line north of Bedford Park Blvd station.


 * By the way, since the signal trips are on the right on the IRT and left on other lines, there are (or were) some "four tripper" Flushing cars which were used to pilot&dagger; trains being moved via the connection at Queensborough Plaza.


 * &dagger;i.e. they'd be coupled to the front of the train
 * --69.159.60.83 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I figured by looking at the line maps. Thanks! 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Remind me not to trust my life to my memory. I guess it was just Chambers Street (A/C) then. I could've sworn you could at least see some of the Broadway—7th Avenue Line or um, other red line tracks from a "blue line". I'm too young to remember the pre-1985 double letter wrong color system and most route changes. I often know what's IRT/BMT/IND (often from styling) /Jerome/Flushing Line etc. and I don't care. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

People of Color
Hi, I did a search on wikipedia and I see there is a project to counter Systemic Bias but I don't really see any task force, project, or even a group dedicated to issues that People of Color face on this site. Can anyone help please? I saw that wikipedia has a task force for the gender gap but nothing on race. Does anything pertaining to race even exist? I'd especially like an answer from a Person of Color like me that understands my experience more than whites do, thanks! Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am a quixotic potato of the Shetland Black variety. My skin is dark purple. I should point out that there is only one human race. WikiProject Countering systemic bias & WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography & Racial bias on Wikipedia & Category:WikiProjects_relevant_for_countering_systemic_bias may be interesting to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads. (said John Cleveland who did not write Fanny Hill.  Are we supposed to pick a preferred color of person to answer? AllBestFaith (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pink. I refuse to be called white. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 11:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a Communist sympathizer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am delighted to disclose that my cat is pink. otherwise she never tells. only her hairdresser knows for sure... Fylbecatulous talk 20:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question and it seems we do not currently have a taskforce committed to fighting that particular systemic bias. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be a reasonable question, but is there such a problem here? Typically, anything that smacks of racism is dealt with severely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias and racism are completely different things. It's about the breadth of our coverage not about the tone of people's interactions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP appears to be asking about both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (Leave it to the white males to blithely claim that racism is not a problem ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can all contribute. For some time I have allowed a color TV in my home. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If it weren't sometimes a problem, it wouldn't have to be dealt with when it happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is somewhat troubling to me that a person enquiring "is there a project for x on wikipedia" - which is to say, an enquiry the answer to which is fairly easily determinable and not likely to affected by the biases of the respondent, is accompanied by "I'd especially like an answer from a Person of Color like me that understands my experience more than whites do". This is not a question that calls for an understanding of a person's experience; seeking to exclude respondents by race is, for me, the troubling and unhelpful aspect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Keep in mind the user has been here less than a month, as the WP:ANI story about him so indicates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think having a long meta-discussion about that is very useful. I already responded to it, and my approach is better. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering how useless most of these responses have been, you've just proven exactly how valid Kswikiaccount's point was. I'm sure you're all patting yourselves on the back for thinking that "there is only one human race" or whatever, but that's not how it works in the real world. If you don't know that, that's because you're as white as white can be and you can get away with being completely oblivious. Now, since I'm just as white and I also have no idea how to answer the question, I won't say any more; just that, this is probably the most embarrassing Reference Desk thread I've ever seen. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it about your being white that prevents you from being able to answer a question as to whether there is "any task force, project, or even a group dedicated to issues that People of Color face on this site"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Kswikiaccount, as you can tell, there is a bit of a knee-jerk response, but the short answer is that people on this page, at least, are not aware of any efforts to determine whether there are issues for people of color, or to address any issues that may exist. However, the Reference Desk is for general factual information, not Wikipedia issues specifically.  You may want to post something at Village pump (miscellaneous).  John M Baker (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding adding links to external link section
Hello ,How can I add links to external link section.Even I have added for once but my links get omitted.What I do now?Please tell me soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghanika (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As has already been explained at your talk page, the reason these links have been removed is that you are repeatedly adding spam links to bhoothnike.com - such promotional links will always be removed - Arjayay (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

airlines terminating destinations
What causes a national airline to terminates from its hub to another airport of another nation for example Biman Bangladesh Airlines terminated its destination to Manama? Is it due to political reasons or due to economic reasons?Donmust90 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea about your specific example, but in the general case, both, either and more. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The most common reason for any airline to terminate a route is because it is not making a profit. Unless there is some sort of political pressure (or subsidy) commercial airlines do not continue to fly unprofitable routes. There may be some political reasons: has there been some issue between Bangladesh and Bahrain recently? Some airlines also get banned because of safety concerned. Wymspen (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Biman and Manama sound like non-English transcriptions of Burma/Myanmar. Perhaps the OP could clarify himself, since this sees like a merely linguistic issue? μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See zero reason to think that. The OP appears to be asking why Biman Bangladesh Airlines the flag carrier of Bangladesh stopped flying to Manama the capital and largest city of Bahrain or more generally why such things happens. Nothing whatsoever to do with Myanmar. (Biman does evidentally fly to Yangon, however it wasn't the example the OP gave and they're still flying there anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note the Dhaka-Manama flights were stopped "due to bank account related complexities" MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Text Color in an Article
In a list, contained within an article, sometimes some of the items in the list are of a common text color (say blue) but some of the items are presented in a special text color (say RED).

What does text in RED indicate. An example is this is site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_in_Texas The first lake is presented in RED color "Lake Joey". Seems that most of the lakes are in BLUE text. What is this difference indicating?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by J F Stager (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's red because it's a link to a nonexistent article. Just like the red in your own signature, as you have not yet created a user page. [Another user just created it, so it's no longer red.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought the OP was asking about his own pages, which I have bluified. The issue is hard to understand for new users, and being redified is actually rather distressing. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've known some users (though I can't think of any in particular) who preferred their user page to remain a redlink. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As others have said, a red link is a link to a nonexistent article. Red linking is deprecated, especially in articles where numerous ones already appear (they look awful), but is tolerable if editors' consensus is that the creation of the linked article is imminent or is desirable. A red link can encourage the creation of the missing article by drawing attention to it. Akld guy (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest the OP let his cursor hover over a red item in the list and see what message pops up. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". See Red link. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As Alansplodge has indicated, whatever lead you to believe red linking is depreciated was wrong. See red link. Red linking is still fine provided it's done properly. If you're red linking to an article unlikely to exist or create a very large number of red links, I don't know it's ever been acceptable. As wikipedia has grown, the number of good red links has obviously gone down (i.e. if there's a redlink there's a far higher chance it's a bad or at least easily fixed i.e. redirect or piping red link then would have been the case 11 years ago), but that's quite different from them being depreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they were depreciated. Akld guy (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You did. AllBestFaith (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Akld guy said "deprecated", Nil said "depreciated" (twice yet). Both words come from Latin and mean different things, although one could argue that the concepts are not entirely disconnected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nil are you wearing your spectacles? AllBestFaith (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was just a typo. Don't make a spectacle of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right I used the wrong word, but the point stands when replaced with the correct word. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red linking is deprecated if there is never going to be an article of that name, such as Cannibalism among Martians, but as I said, if other editors' consensus is that the article will be created soon or is worthy of being created, the red link stays. Akld guy (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there ;) The thing is, other than WP:POINTY examples like you just gave, it's not clear whether an article will ever be made, and it's not even really up to one user to decide that. For example someone might want to make my initial redlink into a bluelink someday, because it is a popular phrase, and we do have bluelinks for many popular phrases, like "that's what she said". Another example is The present king of France, which is presently a redlink. I think maybe tomorrow I'll make it blue by redirecting to Definite description, which discusses this famous example in logical interpretation. But then someone might delete the redirect or make stub just about this nonexitent king. So in most "real world" cases, I see no problem in liberal use of redlinks, it's a form of being WP:BOLD, and it will sort itself out. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, that isn't what you initially said. You said
 * "Red linking is deprecated, especially in articles where numerous ones already appear (they look awful), but is tolerable if editors' consensus is that the creation of the linked article is imminent or is desirable."


 * This is wrong. They aren't simple tolerable but are encouraged. Nor does the creation have to be imminent, but rather simply desirable. They don't require new consensus. There is already consensus that red linking is perfectly fine when done right. If an editor wants to argue against red links, they need to demonstrate that the article isn't likely to exist or establish some other reason to remove the redlinks.
 * In other words, there is no need to establish "other editors' consensus is that the article will be created soon or is worthy of being created". They will stay by default unless there is good reason for their removal i.e. an article is not likely to be created.
 * This is important because editors should not be removing redlinks unless they have a good reason to think they're unwarranted. They should not be telling others not to create redlinks unless these redlinks were undesirable in the first place i.e. the article isn't likely to exist. And in that case they should be clear it's not that redlinks per se are a problem, but the misuse of redlinks is a problem. Saying that they are deprecated in general as you initially did implies both of these which are not the case.
 * Note that you said "especially" not "only" or words to that effect meaning your comment was directed generally at all articles not only at articles with numerous red links. But even in your "especially" case, the claim is still questionable. Given the large number of articles we do have, nowadays in cases where there are numerous existing redlinks, it's fairly likely that the redlinks either aren't good redlinks (i.e. it's unlikely there should be an article on the topic) or WP:overlinking which applies to both blue links and redlinks. The only extra consideration I can think of posed by redlinks is that without an article, it may be difficult to say whether the redlink is actually that useful, so in overlinking cases, there would be an additional strike against the redlink. Some editors may dislike the look of redlinks and wish to remove them, and sometimes people may accept that, particularly if the editor concerned has done a great deal of work on the article, but if there is debate, "it doesn't look good having so many redlinks" is not going to be that effective if there's really no good argument against the redlinks themselves. (As I said, it's fairly unlikely this will happen much nowadays.) So ultimately, while there may be some added impetus against red links, in the unlikely event there are many justified redlinks in an article, they are still perfectly acceptable, or even encouraged and not deprecated and don't require any special consensus.
 * Even with your latest point, I'm fairly sure you're still being misleading since as I already said precisely to cover this point, red linking articles that are not going to exist (with a few exceptions) was AFAIK never accepted practice. Therefore it would not normally be called deprecated as this generally implies it was once accepted practice. Just to repeat for one last time in case there's still confusion, redlinking was and remains encouraged practice when done right. When done wrong, it was never good practice, rather than a historically acceptable practice that is now deprecated. Accepted practice hasn't changed that much, just the likelihood of there being a decent redlink..
 * Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)