Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7

Nice sources for IRT/BMT history
User:Eric B (who coincidentally is the author of Car History and Line by Line History) pointed me to some nice sources about past IRT and BMT history: and. I think we can use these as references and reinstate all original service history sections that were removed. --User: (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only major problem with the old history sections was that they were a copyright violation. These changes in services are attributable; whether or not we have reliable sources at hand, or need to go through newspaper archives, or cite official maps before and after the change, sources do exist. --NE2 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes about new time template
Template:NYCS time has been replaced by template:NYCS time 2. The new one takes the following parameters:
 * 1 (first parameter): service label
 * link (optional; only use for shuttles, where you want to link 42nd Street Shuttle rather than S (New York City Subway service))
 * icon (the icon shown, such as nightsonly for Image:NYCS-SSI-nightsonly.svg; not needed if time=text)
 * text (the alt tag (mouseover "tooltip") on the icon, as well as text afterwards)
 * time determines how it is displayed. Not including time shows only the service label, but this is not useful unless going through an intermediate service template. time=full shows the icon and text; time=text shows only the text. Anything else for time shows only the icon.
 * dicon and dtext are the equivalent for diamond services. To show both regular and diamond services, use

Template:NYCS br is a template used only inside the service templates; it formats the uses so a new line is added only when time=full or time=text.

Here are some examples with template:NYCS Lexington: and for the G on Queens Boulevard: --NE2 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really impressed by what I see. Sorry I was away as I wasn't near a computer for the week I wasn't here. However, I will be active on the weekends, especially on Saturdays. I will be updating the articles to the new format as I see on . That sid, I'll be getting started. --User: (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I really don't think it is a good idea to put large amount of text in the table, as what I see at V (New York City Subway service). It increases the verbosity of the table, making one have to "read" it. I remember doing something like this last summer, which was incidentally frowned upon because of the same reason. So I think that what I did at 1 (New York City Subway service) would work better. Look and see. --User: (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nice though to be able to read the text, where space allows for it, rather than learning the symbols or mousing over them. The symbols don't quite work anyway in cases like the V, which runs weekdays only; from the perspective of a V rider, a weekdays-only service is equivalent to an all-times service. By the way, template:NYCS time2 was a temporary template; template:NYCS time 2 is the one demonstrated above. --NE2 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am definitely concerned about how the bus connection information would be kept up-to-date. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and bus routes (unlike train routes) are highly manipulable. Also, many of the individual station articles now have bus connections too, so that makes another thing that has to be changed in multiple places whenever there is new information. I don't really see the typical user relying on Wikipedia for bus connections, so I wouldn't put that information in multiple places that will tend to get outdated. Also, it is somewhat difficult to extract information from the table. Rather taking than a mere glance, one must actually read the table. It's far too wordy. --User: (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the bus connections; they should be on articles, but only the "special" ones - probably only the airport connections - should be on the line and service tables. I don't understand what you mean about not being able to glance at the table. On V (New York City Subway service), you can simply look at the beginning of each line of text in the transfer column to immediately see all the connections. For instance, I scroll to Roosevelt Avenue, look to the right, and instantly pick out 7EFGR. Then if I want I can look a bit more to the right and see that the G and R are part-time. --NE2 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove endashes from article titles
According to WP:NC, the endashes (–) need to be removed from the station article titles and replaced with hyphens (-). All articles originally had hyphens, but they were changed to endashes, and now they need to be changed back. Some of them have been changed back, but there are many more to go. I've started to do some myself, but there are way too many, and I think we may need a bot for this. –Crashintome4196 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself am most active on Wikipedia on weekends/Saturdays, so I will try to take care of the moves as much as I can. Unless there are some controversial cases, we should leave that to Requested moves. --User: (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, except for Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations, the dashes are most likely to be on the controversial cases :) --NE2 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, please fix double redirects if you move any articles. --NE2 09:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name))
I've noticed that there are fewer station article names with their suffixes removed, courtesy of NE2. Rather than start an edit war where he assumes his ideas are "better", I've decided to bring it up myself to prevent things from getting out of control. What's best, to include it or not to include it? --User: (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would always include the division and line name unless the article is about a junction station. -- Cecropia 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should be precise when necessary. Nothing else has the name "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center". --NE2 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As per Cecropia, I will start moving back the articles to the appropriate titles. PCH agrees too, according to an earlier thread. It's not feasible to assume there is only one station that uses that name. --User: (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is only one station with the name "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center". What else could have that name? --NE2 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other stations that share 50th Street. 47th through 50ths is one of them. --User: (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not what I asked. What's ambiguous about "47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center"? --NE2 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the guidelines give advice on what to do, doesn't mean it has to be done. (Consider WP:IAR. Not all of the rules should be used for editing WP, mostly guidelines. They just give tips.) Yet, you still persist on making the changes, when we, the people of this project objected to changing the name, yet you go on and do whatever you want. Who do you think you are, the owner of this project, dictator, who should always have your way? No. You may have made a lot of contributions to the project, but that doesn't mean you should start dictating how things should be done. Continue your behavior here and it will be taken accordingly. Consider that a warning, NE2. --User: (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You should not call others dicks. --NE2 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Most articles about railway/subway stations are expected to have a disambiguator. This is what I tried to say before. Unless the name is so obvious that it is a station or transportation complex (Grand Central Terminal, Frankford Transportation Center), removing the disambiguator will lead to the inconsistency of some stations having the disambiguator and some without. Few people complain that the disambiguator is extraneous.

What about the following articles?
 * JFK/UMass (MBTA station)
 * 54/Cermak (CTA)
 * Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan (Washington Metro)
 * 7th St/Metro Center (LACMTA station)
 * 15-16th & Locust (PATCO station)

These articles are by choice disambiguated to their respective transit systems. Do you suggest the disambiguators for these should be removed as well? (Don't go changing those articles based on my suggestion!)

I oppose the removal of disambiguators for NYC Subway articles. "(New York City Subway)" should also be restored to articles that indicate a street intersection. I am aware of guidelines, and I would ignore the rules here.

However, people have been passionate about precision. From Naming conventions (television) : there was a heated debate whether TV series episodes need to be disambiguated (e.g. Unfriendly Skies (CSI episode) versus Unfriendly Skies). Through arbitration, it was decided to disambiguate when necessary; therefore, the latter name in the example is the current title. Do I think that is analogous to this station situation? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I lean towards no. And I certainly don't want to go to arbitration to determine consensus. Tinlinkin 12:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider me on it. --User: (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, 42nd Street Shuttle, not 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway), and South Station (Boston), not South Station (MBTA station). Naming is inconsistent, but it's useful to use the guidelines to decide. In any case, I don't see this as a major issue; if these are moved back to "(New York City Subway)", I don't really have a problem with it. The problem of common names versus schedule names is much more important. --NE2 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Names of services are not as ambiguous as names of stations. As far as South Station is concerned, it is not only a commuter rail station and a subway station, it is also an Amtrak station and an intercity bus terminal, and the article combines all of those modes, so the (MBTA station) doesn't make sense there. Tinlinkin 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have news for you, NE2. If you don't want to be called a dick, stop acting like one. If people didn't act as such, we wouldn't need any other policies. That said, just about every page you moved will have its original title reinstated, except your credibility will be damaged. I suggest you learn to work with others instead of acting reckless. --User: (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not what no personal attacks says. Anyway, I don't think Grand Army Plaza will be moved back. --NE2 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. You just think so because it is not the "so-called" common name. --User: (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullets in infoboxes?
Geoking66 placed bullets in some station infoboxes, like in. I reverted, since this is one more thing that needs to be changed when the TA changes services. However, this can be done automatically with a simple change to template:NYCS time 2 and template:infobox NYCS. Do you think this is a good idea? --NE2 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For me, the bullets are decorative, more than anything. They are not essential to convey information. I like Geoking66's format, but I doubt whether it is necessary, and I lean towards no. If anything, don't change Template:NYCS time 2 to replace service links with bullets. Tinlinkin 12:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --User: (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a replacement, but an additional mode. Everything else about the output would be exactly the same as it is now; all that would be added is a new line to supplement the existing links. --NE2 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add a parameter, feel free to do so. But when would the parameter be called (i.e. when and where would the bullets show up)? Tinlinkin 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be another option in NYCS time 2, so you could say or  . Then the infobox code would be modified to include that below the station name. --NE2 06:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you support Geoking66's format then? Well, I still think it's over the top, but it's not harmful. Tinlinkin 07:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any real opinion; I'm just pointing out that if people want it it's easy to do. --NE2 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It is a little flashy, but as long as it's done in a tidy fashion. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribns } 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Table at V (New York City Subway service)
This is a continuation from a discussion above at.

The subway transfers at are listed in a highly verbose way. For instance, this:



versus this:



The table at is far more bloated than the one at. Look at the tables from the MTA website. They are not at all hard to use. A proposal was made back in November to use a very similar format to theirs. They use icons in place of long verbiage in the style of "all times except late nights (12:00 midnight-6:00 a.m.)". However, they do omit time information and simply list services.

Also, coming to think of it, putting bus connections in the subway articles themselves isn't the best solution either. Wikipedia is hardly the go-to source for travel information in New York City, so it is not terribly important to include complete bus connection information. --User: (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you go to the MTA's B table, the V is shown as part-time. But the V runs whenever the B runs, so this is misleading. If we can do better than the MTA, we should.
 * We have articles about many of the bus routes and lists of the others. It makes sense to link the stations to them. --NE2 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever we do, I suggest that we do not use the time=text parameter as it really makes the table verbose.


 * I believe the way we should present work to others is to optimize it for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. --User: (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think readers benefit from being able to read the information. --NE2 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With NE2's format, although informative, tables like those for the R or 2 will look more ugly than that of the V, and there are a lot of redundancies with the shared lines. Since there is a "Station service legend" at the top of the section, why not expand that to include more symbols? If notes on services are required, you could use the ref/note footnote system, as shown in this example, and put the notes at the end of the section. (I was going to suggest fnb as I have used that as my preference and have seen that more in articles I have seen, but since that is deprecated, I decided not to introduce that in this Wikiproject.) Tinlinkin 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Example footnote 1
 * Example footnote 2


 * Think you can show an example? --User: (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I showed an example. Do you mean on the V page? Tinlinkin 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, or at your sandbox. --User: (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll work on it, but I am working on something else at the moment. In the meantime, you may look at The Amazing Race 11 (shameless plug) for an implementation (that uses fnb but is the same idea). Tinlinkin 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, NE2, we had a specific problem like this where a very similar suggestion like the table at is extremely wordy. A discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia talk:/Archive 2. I understand that Consensus can change, but I don't think we should use the same table format that people may disapprove of again. --User: (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Station
Should we use Template:Infobox Station to replace commuter rail station infoboxes such as Template:Infobox LIRR? See Hempstead (LIRR station) and Hicksville (LIRR station) for the generic infoboxes (and compare with Babylon (LIRR station)). Tinlinkin 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing that Infobox Station shows more information, I like the idea of using that one better. Plus, we also have to fix all the Metro-North infoboxes, as some don't have them. I haven't seen much done to those articles. --User: (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that Hempstead and Hicksville have too much information in the infoboxes. Of course that doesn't mean we have to include that information. --NE2 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But all that information is seemingly important than the current contents at other pages. I think they should be changed and added. And don';t bother editing the LIRR infobox to fix the parameters to make them match, it would be redundant. --User: (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On Hempstead, the following information is in the infobox and the article text: address, lines, connections, and services. It doesn't have a space for electrification. It makes sense to use a specialized infobox for a specialized system, though if infobox station were updated, and we agreed not to include stuff like bus connections, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. --NE2 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The connections are put in the "other" field, which is described in the template documentation as "Connecting services that serve the station such as bus, etc". My initial interpretation of that is listing bus systems is appropriate, but not individual bus routes. The other bus systems in Hempstead are from the Greyhound station across from the far side of the Hempstead Transit Center, which I also don't know if that is appropriate. Electrification should not be the reason to have a separate infobox--the field can be added to Infobox Station (in fact, I will add it myself). I do like customization in some instances, such as the appearance of the "name" field. See Template talk:Infobox Station for more on that. Tinlinkin 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The electrification issue is one problem that I have with the Template:Infobox Station, but other than that I just feel there's much more you can add to those. Another issue I have with it is the inability to add banners and logos like the one at Mastic-Shirley (LIRR station). I'd like to be able to add the infobox and keep the banner. I'm not the one who started using them for the Long Island Rail Road instead of Template:Infobox LIRR, but I like them much better. On non-MTA/LIRR/Metro-North related stations, I've been having trouble trying to find out how to create a new rail color box specifically for the Green Mountain Railroad. I wanted it to have a green color bar and text, with a yellow background. DanTD 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, Template:Infobox Station has a space for Fare Zones, which the LIRR and other localized mass transit systems clearly have. I don't see that anywhere on Amtrak. What I would like to see, though, is an example of a Infobox Station with the electrification noted.  DanTD 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added the "electrified" parameter to Infobox Station. Image:Mastic-shirley-lirr.gif was taken from, therefore it it is not free-use and should be taken to IFD. Tinlinkin 12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be certain, has anybody considered adding a column for NRHP boxes? DanTD 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by NRHP, sorry. Tinlinkin 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * National Register of Historic Places. Lots of stations, including Metro-North Stations such as Poughkeepsie (Metro-North station) have that additional status. I brought up this issue on the the WikiProject Trains talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#T.26P_Station_Infoboxes). DanTD 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have an idea of what you want the entry in the infobox to look like? Tinlinkin 10:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just add a historic_designation parameter, then take the existing NRHP infoboxes and add them to Template:Infobox Station the way you would with the routeboxes, like Ronkonkoma (LIRR station). Oh, incidentally, I'm okay with not adding individual bus routes to station infoboxes.  DanTD 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it is possible to nest infoboxes into one another, that is not usually done, and the inner infobox will usually look distorted in some way (smaller text is what I saw during my testing). As to adding parameters from an infobox like Infobox nrhp, that's not preferable because Infobox Station would have to depend on Infobox nrhp whenever the latter is changed. So it's probably best to use two separate infoboxes; which one appears first is up to you. Tinlinkin 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1
I noticed that you guys mentioned an image used for the infobox, using station signage. I remember a discussion thread stating Flamurai's idea on GIF images. They do render horribly, and it is the Wikimedia Foundation's goal to present free images to the community. That is why we should create SVG images of the signage, if we decide to go along with it. I was proposing something like this for the longest, except I wasn't yet introduced to free use images. I do, however, fail to see how Image:Mastic-shirley-lirr.gif is fair use. Fonts of any kind are not copyrightable, and adding outlines and whatnot is are not enough to create authorship. The subway bullets, as well as pictures of signage are also so simple that they are probably public domain. I myself would think it is a good idea to use a station signage imitation for the name parameter in Infobox NYCS. If you'd like me to create them in SVG so they display a little nicer (Wikipedia also frowns on GIF since it's a proprietary standard) and upload them to the Commons, let me know. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For station signage, I don't think it's necessary to create images as the signage can be rendered approximately and close to the actual in HTML. Tinlinkin 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Hicksville (LIRR station) for an application of Template:LIRR style with Infobox Station. I think the simulated sign looks close enough to the actual. Tinlinkin 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's OK. Do you think you can do that for the Metro-North and the New York City Subway station signage? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to use infobox station on the subway, since there are too many special fields. --NE2 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My proposal is not for the station infobox. It's for the NYCS infobox. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't normally use the MNRR, but you can see what I think the signage looks like at Rye (Metro-North station). White text on a black background usually looks bad on a web browser, so I won't apply that to the infobox (but I will try to work on an example anyway). Tinlinkin 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't work for the New York subway stations, then we could upload images then. I don't know if I have time to show an example using a picture, so I may or may not take a position in this discussion until I can access my art teacher's computer later today. He has Inkscape, and seeing that I myself am working on a New York City Subway project myself, I can do two things at once. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my attempt. It doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. Tinlinkin 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are implementing styles for the infoboxes, you can now insert . Tinlinkin 10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now there's no excuse not to use what's on signage :) --NE2 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, I'm slightly okay with using signs as a rule of thumb. Although this proposal is based on station signage design, I have a high concern using signs as our naming source, due to the fact that station signage is not available everywhere, only at one place, which is the subway stations. The maps and schedules and line info is available in stations, mezanines and at home via the internet. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How would this work on stations that serve other lines, such as Stamford, New Haven, Poughkeepsie, and others like that? DanTD 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not use the specialized style on a station like Penn Station New York. I would suggest the Metro North style is appropriate for the stations you mentioned because they are primarily commuter rail stations, and specify  for identifying the multiple operators. Fordham is possibly problematic for a style, but since the Harlem Line is the dominant service, that is what I would use. Tinlinkin 19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those three stations are in the same boat as Penn Station, so maybe we shouln't use it for those either. DanTD 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2
I have implemented the suggestions for the NYCS stations, including the addition of service bullets. What do you all think? Tinlinkin 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming this is a good thing to do, which I don't really have an opinion on, it looks good. I have two minor comments:
 * From Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), you can see that some of the colors are off. Should these be changed?
 * Even though the MTA does not center the signs, we probably should.
 * --NE2 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The colors may be slightly off, but only a tiny bit to me. About the centering, I think it works. Tinlinkin 05:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get one thing here. The backgrounds of the SVG bullets are transparent, or at least supposed to be. Why is there a white background instead? What's up with this? --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're using Internet Explorer, it's because IE has bad PNG support. --NE2 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, I was using IE earlier today while I was in school. I mainly use Firefox at home. No issues with that. IE has so many bugs that they won't take time to fix.... --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think lines that go east and west, like the 7 (New York City Subway service) line for example shouldn't have the next & previous stations listed as north and south. DanTD 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the MTA schedule lists it as north and south. I think the only one that's east/west is the 42nd Street Shuttle, and it's probably not worth fixing. --NE2 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the lines run in an uptown or downtown direction, and reconfiguring the infobox by showind different directions would be confusing. The New York City Subway uses north/south (or within Manhattan, uptown/downtown) because most Manhattan mainlines run roughly north and south. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 12:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

IND or BMT Culver Line
Where is the proof that the line south of Ditmas Avenue is called "IND Culver Line" and not "BMT Culver Line"? I know right now, it is served by an IND Subway Line, but before the connection between Church and Ditmas Avenues was built and the forming of the Culver Shuttle, it was part of the BMT because it connected to the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legendary Ranger (talk • contribs)


 * It's part of a past discussion that took place in March/April. I didn't take any part of it. But seeing as they are two divisions separate, I think they should be split up. Leaving Church Avenue and ascending the ramp, going to Coney Island, the section is a part of the BMT Culver. Train Operators switch from B2 (BMT) frequency to B1 (IND) frequency. Besides, the elevated section was ALWAYS part of the BMT Culver Line. There is a summary about this from this website: http://nycsubway.org/lines/culver.html

--Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6 What we really have to do is ask ourselves how much the BMT/IND split even matters. That's why the article is now at Culver Line (New York City Subway). When the Second Avenue Subway opens, will we call it IND Second Avenue Line? --NE2 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Coding problem
Our templates are a little too complicated; List of New York City Subway stations ran up against template limits. Don't do anything drastic; it may be possible to simply use a few sub-templates inside the if statements. If people feel something needs to be done now, reversing the recent changes to add bullets to the infoboxes is enough until we fix the coding. So we should decide if we should temporarily revert that, or deal with the bigger problem. --NE2 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I was the one who made the changes, I am OK with a temporary reversion. If you look through my edit history, I was trying to figure out why WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines was displaying improperly; now I am pointed to the reason why. I hope "bullets" has not been called somewhere else besides the NYCS infobox.


 * As far as I know, the template limits situation only affects the two pages mentioned. Calls to some templates could be avoided (Template:NYCS row perhaps?). But I think we should still optimize, and transferring some text to other templates may work.


 * Also related to the issue of NYCS time 2, I would also like to propose additional functionality to that template (or include in new templates as may be):
 * Add a "special" parameter that would omit the inclusion of a bullet for a special service that is not publicized on maps or station signs. For example, is it appropriate in Pennsylvania Avenue (IRT New Lots Line) to include the 2 and 5 bullets? I don't believe it is. For late night only services, I am more forgiving. Although I would prefer to denote those in parentheses after the regular services, that level of detail may not be necessary.
 * Use the service templates to denote transfers in the NYCS service articles, without self-references. This would be a solution to the verbose transfer issue. This could be done via a parameter "omit" (e.g. . But there may be other ways.
 * Tinlinkin 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There must be some sort of solution to the issue. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an idea for the infobox. Although the bullets have been removed, I hope that we can restore them later on. If we do, do you think we can add an ADA icon to to it? Here's an example:


 * This is just a rough draft, and I don't propose using the icon that I used. We possibly can use a black on white background image instead. I will show you more later Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The accessibility field in "Other Information" should be enough to indicate accessibility. That definitely should not be mentioned twice in an infobox. Tinlinkin 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After removing the documentation of Template:NYCS-bull-small to another page and reinserted the bullets functionality to NYCS time 2, the List of Stations now displays properly, but the New York City Subway/Lines does not (still 6 lines of non-expansions on the bottom of the page). Tinlinkin 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I swear I saw the table load properly. I guess that was wrong. :< Tinlinkin 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We can always relocate the accessibility parameter to the name section, like I stated above. I don't really care, though. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as possible, we should stick closely to the format of Template:Infobox Station. Tinlinkin 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified Template:NYCS br to use #switch rather than nested #ifs and both pages now work. There are probably some other places we can convert to #switch. --NE2 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The two pages should now display properly. Tinlinkin 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image captions
I added the "image_caption" parameter to Template:Infobox NYCS. If somebody knows what the captions for pictures in the station infoboxes should be, as shown by example with 125th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), please add those. Tinlinkin 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Station naming, again
Again, yes, I know, I'm sorry. The reason I bring this up is because NE2 systematically changes the List of New York City Subway stations page, for example: he calls one station "Second Avenue" because it is the common name, as seen on signs, while Lower East Side–Second Avenue is used on schedules, the map, and line info for the F and V. I keep telling him that just because he finds Second Avenue only w/o LES on Google searches doesn't mean that that is the "common" name. Google searches for names within the news is NOT the end-all, be-all go to guide for the MTA's naming choice. Any tips to help NE2? He is not doing anything but self destructing the project by bullying others with guideline overkill. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Google News searches are pretty good for finding the common name. The common name is more important than the "official" name when the MTA cannot even agree on what the official name is. --NE2 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've stated your opinion enough already. Let's see what TLK (Tinlinkin) has to say. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you want me to decide for either of you? Within List of New York City Subway stations, I wanted the tables to be sortable by street name or landmark–not neighborhood, which is followed for the most part. (The exceptions I see are Briarwood-Van Wyck, Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue, Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer, Jamaica-Van Wyck, & Rockaway Park-B. 116th Street. I would keep Coney Island and the two Archer Line stations because station signage has never put the street name first at some point in the stations' history; the others should put the street name first.) So the entry in the table should be 2nd Avenue at the very least. If "Lower East Side" should be included, it should be after the street. I have no opinion whether LES should be mentioned in the table. Tinlinkin 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the second opinion, TLK. But the MTA puts LES first, and I think we should do the same. I don't see why we should choose newsprint over the MTA's name. LES-2nd Avenue is unanimous over just 2nd Avenue. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because a name is more common (I hate that word) doesn't mean it is more important official. And we shouldn't name our stations by going to guideline overkill. It isn't helping and it preventsus from reaching a decision quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs)


 * On Wikipedia, we do use common names. --NE2 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So I'd guess you'd move e.g. the article on Adam Copeland to the common name, Edge, which is the name of the WWE superstar. As well as Michael Hickenbottom to Shawn Michaels, Eddie Fatu to Umaga, and Phil Brooks to CM Punk. That goes to show the the so-called "common" name is not always used. And do not move the articles based on these opinions.


 * This common name trash is really self-destructing the WikiProject. And if it continues, everyone may not even bother contributing here anymore. Now we are down to about 5 people, which will be 4 next week because I need to get away from Wikipedia. Consider this all your fault, NE2, because I can't deal with crude and nonchalant people like yourself. Learn to work with others and I hope you change your ways sometime soon because it's just driving others away. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter? --NE2 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NE2, let me ask you a brief question. Who do you think you are? Do you think you can dictate how things will look be done on the project's articles? You may have come up with new designs and improvements and what not, but let me make this perfectly clear: You do not own anything, you do not own the articles, you have no right–absolutely no right—to make tyrannical feuds about how things are going to be done around here. "No, you are not going to do that"? "Use common names this, use common names that"? Are you lord and dictator, who can decree what shall and what shall not be? No. You're not. If you want things a certain way, say so, have a discussion, and see what people think. I suggest you read WP:OWN.


 * So you think that the naming guidelines are an example of how names should be around here. Good for you, you're entitled to that opinion. However, the naming guidelines don't fit well for our article titles because there not as obvious as other railroad stations, like Grand Central Terminal is. And we will not consider using the guidelines if you persist on bullying others this way and that. And speaking of common names, I've already told you that station signage are outdated because many carry dead or renamed street names, and there is no way to tell that the signs are accurate.


 * Also, yes, Google searches is somewhat OK for searching for station names. But why should we use the common name where it is not as importatnt as the official name. For example, Van Cortlandt Park-242nd Street is used on he map, line info and the published schedules. Those pieces of information can be used to update ours as service changes warrant. But why should we use 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park, whereas that name is only used on signage. if you ask me, that name loses 3-1, and searches on search engines aren't much of help since the news and other media isn't always preferred when their information on the MTA, the official company of the board, is often not perfect.


 * The fact of the matter is, the common name is not always important, and maybe we wouldn't be in the midst of this discussion if you haven't started unilateral moves based on signage.


 * And finally: Do not try and assert yourself here as if you own the place. This project belongs to all of Wikipedia. If you disagree with stuff that's going on, say so and explain why. If you can make arguments with merit, then others will consider them. On the other hand, if you continue to say "this is the common name", then fewer people will consider. And if you start dictating stuff and making unilateral and renegade edits, then no one will consider. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are to dictate how this project shall be run? Please look in a mirror. --NE2 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NE2, you need a reality check. You will realize the type of heartless user you are when you get blocked for good. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not expressing a view as to the correct outcome. I am not even sure which station names are in dispute.

But I do think the project should arrive at a consensus for how stations will be named. And that consensus should be based on verifiable facts. The MTA is not always consistent, so whatever standard you use, it will be possible to find legitimate reference sources that disagree. Marc Shepherd 13:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some issues:
 * There are a relatively few members on this project who edit regularly now
 * Of those members, perhaps half are really interested with the issue (based on participation in the debates)
 * And of those members, some are experiencing burnout (I may be speaking for myself here...)
 * Whenever one broad proposal appears, exceptions and caveats keep popping up, leaving the proposal to languish or die
 * There are two very different viewpoints that appear to lie under the surface
 * I would like to reach a consensus. But I and others would like some assistance so that naming conventions are not determined by a very small group of members. And conventions may be challenged, anyway. (ergo the U.S. city-state naming convention for large cities) Should all 468 station names be strawpolled to determine a consensus? (!) I hope you could join the debate, as you have shaped many of the NYCS station articles. Here is a listing of disputed station names. Tinlinkin 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Footer navigation boxes
Is a navigation template like Template:NYSubway3 to put at the bottom of station articles a good idea? Tinlinkin 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this thread back in December (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 4), this idea was turned down because it wasn't believed to fit well in the station articles. Larry requested deletion, but I told him to notify the user who originally created it (as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_5). So they have been sitting there for the past six months, unused. I think they can be requested for deletion since they are pretty useless, unless you have an idea to spruce it up or put it into good use. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad idea. Imagine how many of these would be at the bottom of Fulton Street or Times Square! --NE2 12:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone might argue that the navboxes can initially appear collapsed, and thus need not take up too much space. But, obviously, Times Square would still have 9 lines of navboxes, and if the navboxes are big enough we may once again encounter the template limits as with last week's fiasco. So I also don't like those boxes here. Tinlinkin 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Marc Shepherd Back?
I noticed he has been recently discussing and editing other users' talk pages? The Legendary Ranger 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He's only back to settle a dispute between me and NE2. I doubt if he will make a permanent return, but if he does, it will be a great revival to the WikiProject. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank him for taking the time to help settle the dispute. --NE2 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all. I have made a few edits, but don't have time to go at it full-bore, the way I formerly did. So I'm dipping a toe in the water, but not jumping in the whole way. Marc Shepherd 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Things for deletion
I have nominated quite a few templates for deletion (and also a category for renaming):


 * 1) Delete Template:Tempfull & Template:Tf3: used for one internal project page; now obsolete
 * 2) Delete Template:NYSubway1, etc.: from above post
 * 3) Delete Template:NYC bus, etc.: about bus connections as a consequence of discussion at Talk:Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway)
 * 4) Rename Category:New York City Subway stubs to reflect current project scope

-- Tinlinkin 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The template NYCT-stub is now also proposed for renaming. Tinlinkin 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the renaming of the stub category and template is kind of a big deal. Already one of our members already expressed some ambiguity about the proposed renaming! Tinlinkin 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BMT service article name changes
From Talk:1 (New York City Subway service), a proposal has been raised that BMT service articles of the form "BMT number" (such as BMT 13) should be renamed to "number (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service)". I agree with this renaming. Thoughts? Tinlinkin 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as per proposal. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Marc Shepherd 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, but would prefer if "rapid transit" is added, since there were also numbered streetcar services, and the numbers overlapped. So either 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation rapid transit service) or 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit rapid transit service), although I would accept 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service) or 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit service). I don't think the "Corporation" is necessary. --NE2 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, but I do have a problem with article names longer than they need to be. Would "1 BMT rapid transit service" be possible? Also, there are problems with having articles named e.g., "8 BMT streetcar service." On the subways, we have separate articles for Line and Service. But streetcar lines were so numerous, and so many shared trackage, that a separate line and service article is not as meaningful. For example, we have Church Avenue Line. The line had three numbers: 8 and 13 simultaneously, and then it was 35, which the current bus still retains. Part of the reason for the change is that the Brooklyn Bus Corporation also had route numbers starting with 1 and the renumbering resolved the conflicts after NYC took over. So the numbers aren't as meaningful for surface lines. -- Cecropia 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are implying there is going to be a disambiguation problem with the original naming. (I had to read your post several times to catch the subtlety.) I say "1 (BMT rapid transit service)" and "1 (BMT streetcar service)" (I prefer parentheses here) is OK because we know what BMT is referring to in this context. More thoughts? Tinlinkin 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. --NE2 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Railway line templates
I've been trying my hand of late creating Railway line templates (our new shiny German import) for a few lines, including NJT's NEC and Raritan Valley lines. If anyone here could give a look at Raritan Valley Line and Northeast Corridor Line and give me feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it. (The RVL template is currently on all relevant pages; the NEC template is only on the North Elizabeth page for now.) Some judgement calls were involved in the creation of these templates, (especially the representation of the New York approaches) and I'd especially welcome comments on that. Thanks in advance, —CComMack (t–c) 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about it. It certainly looks nice, but it takes up "valuable real estate" on the article. It might be worth attempting to make an abbreviated version that shows one or two stations in each direction, then a "broken line" symbol, and then the terminal(s). It would require a good deal more coding, but it's probably possible to make it automatic once coded. I'd be willing to try. --NE2 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it! I think it's a great idea. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a nice format, but I also think it takes too much space within station articles (perhaps ominously similar to the navboxes issue). But it's absolutely fine for railway lines. I've taken a stab at the railway templates with Template:LIRR Main Line and (soon to be) Template:Montauk Branch. Tinlinkin 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My attempt at shrinking can be seen on the right and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Railway line template. --NE2 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to try it for the line pages, but I have mixed feelings for the service routes. I do like the format, and will be willing to try it. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If by "service routes" you mean the subway, I agree that this has no place on subway station pages. --NE2 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why I've decided to use it for the line pages (e.g.IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) probably the service pages (e.g. 5 (New York City Subway service)), but not for the station pages (Times Square-42nd Street (New York City Subway)). I was working on an experiment for the past 15 minutes specifically for the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line at my sandbox. Feel free to make any changes to it if you'd like. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, make changes at Template:NYCS B'way-7th Av Line. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not merge this with the station listing somehow? --NE2 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Experiment with whatever you can think of. Then come back when you're done. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a double-width line for a local/express portion would be nice; I may create one. --NE2 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think we should format it with black dots for local stations and white dots outlined in black for express stations. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 01:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Railway line template, the icon that appears most appropriate for subway stations is SBHF ([[Image:BSicon SBHF.svg|20px]]), although I am confused with the terminology "Junctions/Stops/Stations with underground/subway" (I interpret it as "railway station with an underground/subway connection"). Keep in mind, the templates came from the German Wikipedia. I think we should respect the existing format and not make drastic icon and style choices without at least input or permission from the railway template talk page. I'm not sure that a double width line provides the greatest visual impact. Why not use the larger ID's (BS4 or BS5) to represent local and express tracks separately, which would allow room for other icons and spacing as necessary? In fact, it looks like the current BS3 is sufficient to do that. Tinlinkin 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon User:Oosoom/Map_icons, where I found the icons like the following:   [renamed from BSicon_vBHFa.svg in 21013]. I assume the official documentation still needs to be translated, but I guess these represent local and express services. IF AND ONLY IF the official German documentation for these symbols is fully translated into English would I dare use these in the railway template format. Otherwise, we do have the multiple column format, which is more than adequate. Tinlinkin 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I always found Image:8th Ave Line schematic.png somewhat confusing and nonintuitive. The convention of big circles for express stations is good, and can be modified for thick lines. The actual crossovers between local and express tracks are not necessary in the map, and can be talked about in the text. --NE2 10:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the new schematics are far easier to comprehend. The articles here don't systematically list every crossover anyway.


 * If it makes its way into the articles, the template Template:NYCS B'way-7th Av Line should be renamed. The abbreviation "B'way" isn't used in any article title that I'm aware of. Marc Shepherd 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Earlier, Tinlinkin said "don't make drastic icon and style choices without at least input or permission from the railway template talk page." However, my earlier opinion stated that we can adapt a similar format, using colors for the route lines and such. If you'd like, I'll make an example and have it ready before the close of the day. A picture is worth a thousand words. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried my hand at IND Eighth Avenue Line and IND Sixth Avenue Line. Follow the links; I haven't transcluded them. The Sixth Avenue Line was considerably more difficult to portray, due to all the branching at both its northern and southern ends. Marc Shepherd 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be working on this in an image format. I'll use the track plans from the NYC Subway Resource site as a guide. I've put it off for a while, but I'll be working hard now to make this fall through. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have it ready by tomorrow. I'll work on the BMT Canarsie Line. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also done IRT Lexington Avenue Line. Now, let's see how any of these fit into the articles. Marc Shepherd 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to show such detail on the loops; the diagrams are basically showing every track at South Ferry, when other junctions are shown "flat". This makes the loop appear much larger than it actually is. --NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my aborted work is at User:NE2/BW7; I may get back to it soon. --NE2 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might be possible to compress the loop a bit, without loss of information. I looked at some of the diagrams that have been done for other rail systems, and it appears that other editors have tried to show more detail, within the limits of the templates' capabilities. The South Ferry double-loop is unique in the subway system, so the effort to portray it accurately struck me as worthwhile. I do agree that it's out of proportion, but clearly these templates don't purport to represent the lines to scale.


 * Your work on User:NE2/BW7 is coming along nicely. Marc Shepherd 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus Connections on Far Rockaway (LIRR station)
If you need to ditch that fact tag for the bus connections on Far Rockaway (LIRR station), and you do, the source you can site is MTA's "The Map." The official LIRR page on that station confirms it too(http://lirr42.mta.info/stationinfo.asp?station=099). The only trouble is, I don't know how to write it out. DanTD 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Alansohn 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was leaning towards "The Map," but that was good too. DanTD 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact Checking on Station Opening Dates
On the BMT Broadway Line page, someone has very scrupulously footnoted the opening date for every station, and inserted fact tags for every station where the date couldn't be verified from the New York Times archive. Likwise, fact tags were inserted in the corresponding individual station articles, next to the station opening date in the Infobox.

I have a few observations about this. The vast majority of the station opening dates for the subway project were taken from nycsubway.org. Wikipedia requires cited sources, but not necessarily the New York Times. If nycsubway.org states an opening date, and it is not manifestly erroneous or contradicted by other/better sources, then that's an acceptable source. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with someone citing an even more authoritative source. But if the statement is sourced from an independent website, the citation requirement is met.

On the page for Whitehall Street–South Ferry (BMT Broadway Line), I initially removed the fact tag on the station opening date in the infobox, and replaced it with a footnote. The resultant edit (here) looked dumb, because the footnote duplicated the external reference to the nycsubway.org page. I therefore removed the footnote. There are hundreds of pages dedicated to individual stations, and they all have opening dates, so this is something the project should be consistent about.

Lastly, the page for BMT Broadway Line includes a footnote or fact tag against every station opening date in the station listing table. I think this makes the station data table look ugly. All of those opening dates are also footnoted in the narrative section of the article, and I don't see any need to footnote them again. I would rely on the footnotes in the narrative (where they fit better), and not duplicate them in the table. Marc Shepherd 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have come across a number of errors in the nycsubway.org dates. Nycsubway.org disagrees with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle at every pre-dual contracts station on the BMT Jamaica Line. It's also not necessarily true that when the line opens between two points, all the stations in between open; take a look at the old BMT Lexington Avenue Line (now the Jamaica Line) at East New York. This is much more common on els, but happens on subways too: see High Street-Brooklyn Bridge (another nycsubway.org error). I do agree with a limited "handwaving" on lines built during the dual contracts or later, where we can assume that all intermediate stations open unless we find otherwise. But the older lines, including the first subway in Washington Heights, had too many "infill" stations to make this assumption. --NE2 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I totally agree with you that nycsubway.org (like any secondary source) is sometimes wrong. I am merely suggesting that, when no better source is available, nycsubway.org is reliable enough to count as a citable source, unless there are specific reasons for disbelieving it in a particular case. Marc Shepherd 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that they got many dates wrong is a good enough reason to disbelieve the rest of them. --NE2 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of them have either been demonstrated to be correct, or there is no firm reason to disbelieve them. But in any event, from a WP point of view, once a source has been found, the only antidote is to find a better one (if you can). Marc Shepherd 02:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most stations on the Jamaica Line, and some on the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, have incorrect dates, and there are certainly more. That's not an "overwhelming majority" of correct dates. --NE2 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * nycsubway.org is not dependable because it accepts whatever dates are available. It would be better for us to do a circa on the most reasonable date. In certain cases, there is no single date. Example: Prospect Park on the Brighton Line. They say 4/4/1905. Where in the world did they get that date? That station has always been in an open cut. So it can't be the day the open cut station opened after having been on the surface. If you have to have a single date, it would be July 2, 1878. whem it was the original northern terminus of the BF&CI for all of six or seven weeks. From that time to the present day the station never really closed, even as it was rebuilt to the current configuration around the end of WWI. The current platforms at Prospect Park were completed toward the end of 1918. The station reached its current status (2 tracks to Fulton Street, 2 tracks to deKalb on August 1, 1920. So what happened on 4/4/1905? Even more absurd is giving the same date for Parkside Avenue. Parkside Avenue didnt open in the current location until late 1918-early 1919. Before then the station was Woodruff Avenue and south of the current station. -- Cecropia 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion, but on the Sea Beach Line, and the Brighton Line north of Brighton Beach, I'd go with when the first nearby station opened for which a direct line of succession exists; in other words, it may have been moved a block or two but stations at the two locations were never simultaneously open. On the other hand, the (BMT) Culver Line and West End Line were built above the older lines, which continued to operate, so I'd go by when the elevated station opened. Of course this isn't a black and white matter; we can put more than one date in the infobox.
 * It should be noted that this doesn't only apply to the lines that replaced other types of railroads, but also to those that were completely rebuilt under the Dual Contracts or at other times. For instance, the present Atlantic Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) station probably contains nothing, structurally or design-wise, of the original station built for the Fulton Street Line, which was above Snediker Avenue. And a number of Dual Contracts rebuildings saw platforms shifted outwards or even moved along the line as an extra track was added in the middle.
 * As for the other issue, that of getting an exact date, the idealist in me says that since there was a specific date that it opened, there should be documentation somewhere, but the realist says that sometimes it may be impossible to find, and we can only narrow it down to a month or so based on newspaper articles that say for instance "the station will open soon" and "someone was robbed at the station". --NE2 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All of that seems very prudent. But my original point was simply that fact should be used only where there is a purported factual statement for which there is no source. It should not be used for a factual statement that has a source, but just not the source that's ideally wanted. If a source is contradicted by other known facts, then of course clearly that source should be disregarded. Obviously nycsubway.org is known to be less reliable for pre-1904 lines, and an editor should take that into account. Marc Shepherd 11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But suppose a source states something that you know is wrong, but you don't have a solid source with the correct information? Example, nycsubway.org gives a date of 8/23/1907 for every Brighton Line station from Church Avenue to Brighton Beach. We know that most, if not all, of those dates have to wrong. Let's assume they mean the current stations, not the original surface stations. Church Avenue and Brighton were not rebuilt in the 1904-1908 grade crossing elimination, they are both Dual Contract rebuilds, c.1918. As to the other stations, they could not possibly all have opened on the same date. One reason is that the the northern part of the line was rebuilt in place, while the southern end of the line was rebuilt while service was shifted to the nearby LIRR line. Here is a picture from January 1906, showing the Avenue H station (also the current station house) in service. So we could cite this source to show that the Avenue H station was in use before 8/23/1907, but considering this, and Church Avenue and Brighton Beach incorrect dates, how can we use nycsubway.org as a reliable source? -- Cecropia 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, "RapidTransit.net." I should look there for histories more often. But has anybody looked at The Unofficial LIRR History Website, Arrt's Arrchives or TrainsAreFun for any Long Island Rail Road related histories? That's what I've been using. In any case, I'd still like to be able to redirect more of the former Far Rockaway Branch LIRR stations to current subway stations along the IND Rockaway Line. DanTD 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see from Image:Rockaway Branches.jpg, the Far Rockaway Branch did not become the IND Rockaway Line west of Hammels. That part was built as the Rockaway Beach Branch. Histories of two of the predecessors are in the public domain: wikisource:The Long Island Rail Road: A Comprehensive History, Part One: South Side R.R. of L.I. and wikisource:The Long Island Rail Road: A Comprehensive History, Part Two: The Flushing, North Shore & Central Railroad. --NE2 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Station Listing Tables in NYCS Line Articles
Every article that describes one of the New York City Subway lines is meant to have a "Station listing" table, which lists all the stations and various attributes about them. Some of the articles do not yet have a table, but in the ones that do, there is considerable variety. Actually, the only two points in common are that the station name and opening date are always listed.

What we have now
Here are some more detailed observations:


 * Neighborhood — Present only for two lines, Culver Line (New York City Subway) and IND Eighth Avenue Line. Where present, always the left-most column


 * Access icon — Not present for all lines; usually the left-most columm, but not always


 * Station name — Always present; sometimes bolded, but usually not


 * Tracks — Indicates whether the station is served by local tracks or all tracks. Not always present, even for lines where it is relevant


 * Services — Usually present, but some articles use the "old style," and others use the newer templates that show service times symbolically. For an example in the old style, see IRT White Plains Road Line. For an example in the new style, see BMT Broadway Line.


 * Opened — Station opening date; always present. One nuance is that in some articles every opening date is footnoted, and in others they are not.


 * Closed — Shows station closing dates; only present for BMT Myrtle Avenue Line.


 * Transfers/Notes/Connections: Quite a bit of variety here:
 * IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line has separate columns for "Transfer" and "Connections". BMT Jamaica Line has "Connections" and "Notes," but no connections are listed.
 * Many articles have a column called either "Transfers and Notes" (the most common heading) or "Notes". Transfers aren't always shown, even where the column heading says they should be.
 * Where transfers are shown, at least three styles are used:
 * Some use the "old style" (free-form text). For example: Culver Line
 * Some use the "new style," but in a verbose fashion, listing both the transfer services and transfer station names. For example: BMT Nassau Street Line; IND Eighth Avenue Line
 * Some use the "new style," but in a more terse fashion. For example, IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line

Recommendations
Here's a proposal for standardizing on the following column headings and usage:


 * Neighborhood — I could go either way on this. Only two line articles now have it, but it does appear to be somewhat useful information. Either it should be added everywhere, or deleted from the two articles that now have it.


 * Access icon — Should be the left-most column, unless "Neighborhood" is used.


 * Station name — Should be un-bolded


 * Tracks — Should be present for all lines where it is relevant (i.e., all lines that have both express and local tracks)


 * Services — Should be present, and should use the "new style" templates


 * Opened — Should be present. Footnotes should be removed from the table, as they are ugly and redundant. In those articles that have them, the footnotes usually duplicate information already present in the narrative section earlier in the article.


 * Transfers and notes — Should be present, and should use the new templates with the more terse style employed in BMT Broadway Line. Connections and other notes go in this column, as well.

Thoughts? Marc Shepherd 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also good points.


 * I have no opinion on the neighborhood location, but is very hard to tell how to locate an intersection in a neighborhood.


 * The accessibility icon should be put before or after the station name; I don't care either way.


 * I prefer bold for station names, but that's just my opinion.


 * Traks and services are definite yeses.


 * Indicate when the station opened, and indicate if it's closed. I never really liked the idea of the footnotes by the dates, but are somewhat useful.


 * Transfers and notes are also definite yeses.

–User: (talk • contribs • email) 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of information overlap: if you pick a station, details of the station are mentioned in List of New York City Subway stations, one or more line articles, one or more service articles, and the station article itself. The maintenance of all this, redundancies, and information overload are concerning, and need to be discussed.
 * Notwithstanding that, at first glance, here are my opinions:
 * The problem with neighborhood is some stations could be defined as being in more than one neighborhoood. Some examples: some stations on the J/Z along Broadway can be in both Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant. Halsey Street (BMT Canarsie Line) is in both Bushwick, Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens. As a sort of aside, I considered adding neighborhoods to List of New York City Subway stations, but then I realized this issue and backed down from it. (I want to add boroughs, though, and I can do that this week.) The boundaries of neighborhoods themselves are often disputed. So I don't know if I would endorse including neighborhoods, leaning towards no.


 * Tracks and services may be combined as shown on the right. I anticipate problems with certain lines; I don't know which ones at the moment.
 * I support the rest of Marc's suggestions and preferences. Tinlinkin 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An alternate proposal for headings is to the right. Here, this would mirror the service legend columns in service articles. The good news is this format would be consistent with the services. The bad news is it cannot distinguish between local and express services. I am also not a fan of the Tracks column in the first place. Tinlinkin 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that there's a lot of redundancy. I have no easy solution, but it helps to "templatize" as much as possible. Anything in narrative text about services or service frequencies that could easily change in the future is a maintenance headache. My personal pet peeve is when someone puts a bare letter or number (1 or N) in an article. If there ever were a need to find all the places that discuss that service, they would be virtually impossible to find. That was one of the many benefits of the original templates (e.g., ), which now have regrettably been deleted. (The fact that recently added service references are unbolded makes them even harder to find.)


 * In the service articles, I think the second table shown above would be just fine. At the moment, I am leaning against including neighborhood, but I could be persuaded.


 * By the way, the station tables are by no means the only way in which the line articles are inconsistent. But in lieu of making this topic overly complex, I figured I'd just start with one issue, and build from there. Marc Shepherd 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

After a second look, my sense is that IND Eighth Avenue Line is the best one we have. I would be perfectly happy to adopt the station table in that article as the gold standard for all of them. Marc Shepherd

Station Listing Tables in NYCS Service Articles
This is a companion analysis to the previous thread. Most of the service articles have station listing tables too, and they are somewhat analogous to those in the line articles. There is a lot less variation, but nevertheless, we are not consistent.

What we have now
In a majority of the service articles, the station listing tables are structured as follows:


 * Station service legend table — This is actually a separate table above the station listing, explaining how to read the new-style "time" icons. The only problem is that, in many cases, there are icons used in the station listing that aren't explained in the legend.


 * Service legend column — This is a column headed by the service letter or number, with stylized icons in each row showing the hours of service. All but two service articles have this . Where multiple services are described in the same article, multiple columns are used, except in, where one column was used for both the "normal" service and the rush-hour WPR express variant. This latter case didn't work out very well.


 * Station name — In most of the line articles, the station name is unbolded. In most of the service articles, it is bolded.


 * Access icon — In most of the line articles, the access icon column is to the left of the station name. In most of the service articles, it is to the right of the station name.


 * Subway transfers — In most of the service articles, transfers are portrayed using the new-style icons, with the "terse" notation referred to above. There are quite a few articles where the conversion is incomplete, resulting in multiple styles in the same article.


 * Connections — Unlike the line articles, connections are invariably in a separate column. Two of the service articles attempt to portray every bus connection . The others portray only "important" connections.

Recommendations
Here's a proposal for standardizing the column headings and usage:


 * Station service legend table — We just need to ensure that every icon used is explained


 * Service legend column — This is fine, except that needs to be put into the multi-column format


 * Station name — As noted above, I prefer unbolded names, simply because I think the bolding is unnecessary. But whichever we choose, it should be consistent across both the line and service articles


 * Access icon — I can go either way, but we should standardize on puting it before or after the station name


 * Subway transfers — All should use the terse new style, and those that are partially converted should be fixed


 * Connections — The two articles showing every bus connection should only show the major connections, as is done everywhere else

I've one additional observation: Most of the line articles put subway transfers and connections in one column (generally headed "Transfers and notes"), while most of the service articles have separate columns. I think it looks better when they're separate, and perhaps that means that my proposal in the previous thread should be modified. In the line articles, the "services" column could be replaced with one or more service legend columns, as these seem to work quite well. Marc Shepherd 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some very good points.


 * For your first and second opinion, I agree, except with the 5, because even though there is a rush hour variant, the diamond symbol is not used for the 5 train anymore, only for supplemental <6> and <7> trains.


 * For the name bolding, I don't really care


 * For the accessibility icon, it should go after the name.


 * The new style subway transfers do need to be fixed.


 * All rail connections should be shown. As for the bus connections, I agree that the only buses that should be shown in the connections column is airport buses, such as the M60, B15, etc.


 * These are my opinions, but most of the tables are sorted out this way, and should therefore be all standardized as so to maintain consistency. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * About the 5, the <5> (to Nereid Avenue) is not distinguished anymore. If forks need to be pointed out, the A demonstrates that. (I cannot say if that layout is the best, though.) The forks for subway lines should also be reviewed.
 * I have something to say about the service legend column and the icons, something to do with optimization and maintenance. I have taken too much time thinking about it, and I want to move on to other things, so I may finish my thought later.
 * For the transfers and other notes issue, I would go with whatever appears the least crowded. For the lines, since the columns take up a lot of space, the two should be in one column. The services are the opposite, and so the two could be separated.
 * The neighborhoods appear to me to make more sense to be in the service articles. But I'm not committed to that, and I would still oppose that for now.
 * I am in agreement to the rest of the recommendations, for the time being.
 * Whatever happens, for both proposals, the earliest time in which any modifications to tables should happen is one week from the start of the proposal, because this is a major overhaul. I need time to review all the ramifications and possibilities. Tinlinkin 09:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion for how to handle the , and with the suggestion to wait a week. I tend to lean against including neighborhood, but I could be talked into it. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollsign template
The template rollsign is intended to duplicate old-time rollsigns, i.e., those pre-dating the current NYCTA color scheme. This template is used on many of the service articles, and has been for a very long time. There are several issues:


 * On some browsers, it doesn't display correctly. For instance, on Bowling Green–South Ferry Shuttle, two of the "SS" rollsigns have parts of the S's cut off. The same occurs for one of the 5's in .


 * There is no authority (no cited source) that this template even replicates the original signs accurately. In a number of cases, they are captioned "in a circle," suggesting that the signs were originally circular, even though the template can't reproduce them.


 * I am not really convinced that a big letter inside of a black box is even that interesting. See, for instance, ' and '.

My sense is that rollsign is over-used, and isn't even that interesting, attractive, or informative. Anyone else have that reaction? Marc Shepherd 02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that opinion. If the caption indicates the sign "in a circle", and they are 1967-1979 bullets, then my opinion is that we should upload images of the bullets. I found a website called transferpoint.bravepages.com (WARNING: Full of spam ads) where the user created some fonts based off the subway bullets. (I myself managed to retrieve a copy of the file whereas this can be done.) We can find the right color schemes for them. The 1967-1979 bullets are located here, and the 1979-present bullets are located here. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Station naming convention
For discussion:


 * WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention

and corresponding talk page. Marc Shepherd 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The 7 train in the B Division?
If it was from any source other than the NY Times, I wouldn't even mention it here, but you need to wonder where are they getting their info, and is there some peculiarity that is unknown here? see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html. When referring to the findings of Howard Roberts, the president of the NYCT, it says:

Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.

Weel, what do you think?

-Seidenstud 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Flushing Line is part of the B Division with respect to signals, because it only connects to the Astoria Line, but A with respect to history and equipment. --NE2 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Subway service infobox
I think that Infobox NYCS service should be expanded with more parameters. Here's an idea for some additional parameters (in no order):
 * Number of stations
 * Length (mi / km)
 * Operation time periods
 * Lines used (IND, IRT, BMT, etc.)
 * Date/year service began operation
 * Former service names (ex: AA, HH, etc.)
 * Terminals

I think that the infoboxes should also be available to be used for defunct services as well. Another parameter could be used for when the service ended. I wouldn't mind going ahead and adding the changes, but I just wanted to get some opinions here first. – Dream out loud (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with those except for "Date/year service began operation." How would you determine when a service like the 4 began operation? Current services or predecessors? I would assume the former service names would be accompanied by dates as well. Tinlinkin 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of these parameters are problematic. On the IRT, almost every pairing of north/south terminals that's physically possible has been used at some point. The BMT/IND are almost as complex. That makes if difficult to crisply state all of the former service names. (As Tinlinkin pointed out, dates/years of operation pose a similar problem.)


 * Most of the current services have more than one variant (different combinations of north/south terminals and stations visited), depending on the time of day. That makes it difficult to come up with one value for Length or Number of Stations. Those parameters would make more sense in an infobox about each line. Unlike services, lines are physical structures that seldom change.


 * The Lines used by each service are already shown in most of the service articles, in tabular form. For instance, see A. As you'll see, it doesn't readily reduce to an infobox format.


 * Times of operation can be stated with relative ease, although the vast majority of the services operate 24/7 in some form—the details change throughout the day. The only ones that don't operate 24/7 are the B, C, V, W, Z, 3, and 42nd Street Shuttle.


 * I do agree that the defunct services should be brought into the same format. One of this project's priorities should be to bring the service and line articles up to a common standard. It's hard work, which is probably why it hasn't happened. Marc Shepherd 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marc; number of stations varies based on time of day. For instance, the A is fully local at night, and some services have multiple terminals. Length is also affected by the latter issue. Almost all services operate at all "normal" times, so I don't think that would be very useful. And when they don't operate, there is usually a replacement - for instance the C could be said to operate 24 hours, just extended and renamed A at night. Former names and creation date are mostly possible, but there are enough weird cases that it's probably not worth assigning a single number. For instance, the pattern that evolved into the 1 was formed in 1904 when the first subway opened, but changed first to run via the "H" system in 1918, was extended into Brooklyn in 1919, and finally sent to South Ferry in 1959. I believe the number 1 was assigned internally in the 1930s. After a bit of thought, I think most of the BMT services (some of the ex-steam lines have a number of possibilities), almost all the IND services (the B/C swap complicates things, as do the B and D extensions into Brooklyn), and the IRT 4-7 have clear dates. --NE2 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * D'oh! I forgot about the service variations. Although the A takes over the C at night, I wouldn't interpret that as saying the C runs 24 hours. The cases are complicated enough that summarization would not easily work. The parameters do make more sense for lines, I agree. But I don't know if infoboxes for lines are necessarly warranted. Tinlinkin 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NYCS time
Template:NYCS time has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Dream out loud  (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Navbox on station pages
Can someone direct me to the discussion (if there was one) where it was decided to remove navboxes from the bottom of the individual station articles? Marc Shepherd 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have news for you my friend: there was none. Yours truly NE2 had the nerve to unilaterally remove them. I didn't really care, but he should have discussed first . You see how every issue brought up in the project goes back to him? Problems have persisted with him since the beginning of January, and issues with persist until he is referred to administrative actions. And it is getting worse. –User: (talk • contribs • email) 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NE2's message, which I suppose was the same on all articles, was: "Removing the navigation template from articles on stations, none of which are on it, Replaced: NYCS navbox → using AWB" (from Kings Highway (BMT Brighton Line)). A navbox is expected for navigation between all entities that are within it. If an article uses the template, and it is not in the template, it just adds "what links here" clutter and may also imply that the template within the article is used for decorative instead of restrictive purposes. For example, at the Kings Highway station, why should it be expected that a user could jump to the service W? Tinlinkin 06:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad justification; I was just wondering if it was ever agreed to. Marc Shepherd 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)