Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard (BMT Astoria Line) station layout

Does anybody know why the station layout template at Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard (BMT Astoria Line) is broken? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how it works, but  Done. Vcohen (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vcohen and DanTD: (edit conflict) Probably because of the system-wide title changes from  –  to –; it's probably a good idea in the long term to migrate all of the templates using the switch parser function for article titles to a Lua module. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jc86035, Vcohen, and DanTD: I think migrating the switch functions to a Lua module is a good idea. Also migrating all the station layout templates could be beneficial, especially since {{NYCS Platform Layout IRT Pelham Line/local}} and {{NYCS Platform Layout IRT Jerome Avenue Line}} use a function for detecting the string "IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line" (the line's disambiguator) in the article's name. But for the long run, maybe each station can have their own platform layouts anyway, using {{S-line}} to update the destinations, and then these line templates can be deprecated. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Maybe we could use a module for creating platform layouts as well (not just for this system)? We would then have an actually standardised way of making layouts instead of copying dozens of lines of table code for a station with a single island platform. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I was actually thinking of creating modular layouts (not using the Module namespace, but rather the Template namespace). I actually started writing the template code for these layouts (with a very rudimentary guide at Epicgenius/sandbox/Station layout). They are located at:
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station bottom
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station levels
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station platform
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station top
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station track
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station track direction
Epicgenius/sandbox/Station track span
Hopefully there's a way to integrate them into modules and allow extra flexibility for these templates. epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
(pinging Sameboat, Johnuniq) It's relatively easy in Lua to just stick together bits of HTML, so it shouldn't be prohibitively difficult. We could do it either by having an infinite number of parameters (like Module:Infobox) or extremely complicated syntax (like Module:Routemap). (Honestly, given how much some editors hate the Routemap syntax it's probably better to go for the former.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jc86035 that for station platform layout, it's worth converting the whole thing into Lua module for better future expansion without creating more sub-templates. This is a good opportunity for Epicgenius to begin learning the basic of Scribunto/Lua. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'll look at this when I have time; it seems pretty interesting and can be useful to me. In the meantime, I'll keep maintaining the current wikitables. epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Heated Plexiglas shelters with crosswalk signal pushbuttons

I don't know how many of you have seen this on the Hudson Line, but who's idea was it?

Did these features come with the 2006-2008 restoration of this section of the line? And just how many stations have this? I had no reason to use them when I took the pictures of these things, but if they work, it's worth it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Replacement of SL diagrams

Does anyone else feel like replacing the remaining 40 SL diagrams (in my sandbox)? It's taken a lot longer than expected, but most of the remaining work should just be copying the existing diagrams. (I've converted the diagrams to {{Routemap}} because of its more customizable {{BStext}} implementation, but it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone who's only used BS-map before.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Rare and unusual NYC Subway signs

By now, everybody here knows about my late-June 2016 photographic rampage, and I found some pretty unique signs within the subway stations. But I really have to ask about a sign that I only saw at Gun Hill Road (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Sure, my "Trains arrive in both directions" sign image at Park Place (BMT Franklin Avenue Line) is fairly unusual, and I'm proud of capturing it, but I can't think of any other station where you'll find signs like this... and red exit only signs on the sides of existing black signs don't compare to this one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Where else can you find almost all red Exit Only signs on the subway?
Here is another one, but we have no images of it. Vcohen (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And one more... Vcohen (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that one is a little more unusual, but only because of the 6 train logo. Otherwise it's just a black sign with a red Exit Only tab on the side. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I also have taken pictures of that sign at Park Place. At the 81st Street – Museum of Natural History station there is a sign that says that you only ride for free under 44 inches.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If you've got this one, you should post it! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Two J trains

Could anybody add categories for these two car models? Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)#Requested move 13 September 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)#Requested move 13 September 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at List of London bus routes

Our friends in London are requesting comment on color coding wikitext at Talk:List_of_bus_routes_in_London#RFC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Select Bus Service

Well, it's time to split this article. It has so many templates, you can't even see the references list. Unlike the depots split, this is urgent. epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably time to split these a long time ago. I'd even go so far as to say you could merge some sections into a lot of existing articles. Bx12 SBS could be easily merged into the 207th Street Crosstown Line. M15 SBS should be merged into Second Avenue Line (surface). B44 SBS could be easily merged into Nostrand Avenue Line (surface). M34 and M34A should be redirected to a new article on the 34th Street Crosstown Line, M86 should be redirected into a new article on the 86th Street Crosstown Line, and so-on and so forth. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
We have Bx12, M15, B44, B46, M60, Q70, and Q44 articles. All we need is S79, Bx41, M34/A, and M86. epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:NYCS time 2

Hello all,

There is a problem in the {{NYCS time 2}} template. I made a temporary fix, because links like [[some article|{{NYCS some template}}]] did not work, they showed up as plain text. Is there any way to revert my temporary fix without bringing back that problem? Vcohen (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have solutions, only more problems. Using any {{NYCS Line}} with the |exclude= creates weird spaces. Like in M23, The intersection with 7th Avenue provides a transfer to the downtown M7 and M20, and the 23rd Street station of the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line, served by the  1 train. At 8th Avenue, the northbound M20 is nearby, as is the 23rd Street station of the IND Eighth Avenue Line's C E routes. Note the double space (highlighted), which never shows up anywhere else on Wikipedia in view mode... epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The bug of these templates is that the "NYCS br" part is not included in any of the ifeq's checking the "exclude" parameter. If the "exclude" parameter is given, one of the ifeq's removes its content and the "NYCS br" remains alone at the very beginning or end of the resulting text. Vcohen (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Then could we put the "NYCS br" into the "exclude" part of each template? epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't know how to implement that. The "NYCS br" should be eliminated if any of the excludes is given. Is there "or" in the template language? Vcohen (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am trying these two changes together (the second one includes removing spaces around the "NYCS br" part). Vcohen (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Not good. This way {{NYCS trains}} doesn't see this space, even after I replaced it by  . I will undo my changes. Vcohen (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried that, but I canceled the edit after I used "preview transclusion." If you remove even one space before/after {{NYCS br}}, the entire thing is unspaced unless you specifically add an   before {{NYCS br}} to all 200+ templates. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Switches at 74th Street

The Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street (New York City Subway) article mentions switches installed at the Flushing Line station and connecting the express track to the local ones. The source it cites does show the switches, but it is a user-generated source. Another source that I know does not show any switch at the station. Are there more sources to confirm that the switches exist? Vcohen (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Those switches were installed in 2008 and Peter Dougherty does not update his old online track maps. He does have a book, which is where I got this information.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I saw the 74th Street switches myself. They are used for emergency reroutes and also these General Orders where trains skip 33, 40, 46, 52, and 69 Streets on weekends. The online version of NYC Subway Track Maps is not updated that often, and doesn't even show the line's Hudson Yards extension. epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's a satellite view from Google Maps, showing such switches. epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Junius Street and Livonia Avenue

The List of accessible New York City Subway stations article claims that the Junius Street and Livonia Avenue stations are planned to be connected into a station complex, according to the MTA Capital Program for 2015-2019. Is there a reason for the fact that none of the List of New York City Subway transfer stations, Junius Street (IRT New Lots Line) and Livonia Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) articles mention that? Moreover, one of the articles states that "a free MetroCard-only transfer between the two stations will be provided" temporarily in 2019, a totally irrelevant thing for stations having a physical connection. Vcohen (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. It is right there. "This overpass leads to the main entrance of the Livonia Avenue station on the BMT Canarsie Line. There are proposals to convert the overpass into a free-transfer passage between the two stations, due to increasing ridership and plans for additional housing in the area. Money is allocated in the 2015–2019 Capital Program to build this transfer. The station will also be upgraded to become compliant with mobility accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990."

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I am sorry and thanks. Vcohen (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It is ok.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

LIRR connections on route lists

A while ago, I removed the LIRR connections from the Nassau bus route list, as we don't list enroute subway stations on the NYC bus route pages. However, they were restored by 98.116.56.138 (talk · contribs). To avoid edit warring, I just wanted to seek consensus here before I removed them again. — Train2104 (talk • contribs)

Actually, we add them both as well as Metro-North and PATH stations.---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations

Anyone else feel like this article should be split up into smaller articles? epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The most I can see is dividing this by borough. Two other depots that still aren't on the list still puzzle me though; The former Canarsie Depot, and the Greenpoint Paratransit Depot. I think this is one of those article that was consolidated from much smaller ones, like the lists of tunnels and yards, some of which never should've been redirected. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Dividing by division (and putting former depots in a different article) would be good. How would we go about doing this, though? This is one of these articles that is one huge mess because 20 different articles were merged into it. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's a bit obvious to me, but I'm thinking Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations in Manhattan, Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations in the Bronx, Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations in Queens, Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations in Brooklyn, and Bus depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations on Staten Island, and have the former depots in each borough added to the appropriate articles. And there's still the issue of the Paratransit Depot in Greenpoint, which I just found out was the Crosstown Depot, which I don't think makes it a former depot, and I suspect is a city wide operation rather than belonging to any division. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea: 5 articles instead of 6. It may be a bit confusing for people who want to see former depots' articles, but that doesn't seem like a big chunk of readership anyway. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If anything, the sixth (current) article should be left as a parent article, such as the NRHP lists in Suffolk, Nassau, New York and Westchester Counties. Perhaps some of the other segments that aren't part of a specific borough division like the Central Maintenance Depots, and the Access-A Ride one could be added to that. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe it should just be a general concept article about the depots as a whole, as well as some of the miscellaneous depots. epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Splitting by borough is as logical as it comes. But what about the Yonkers depot? Actually, all the MTA Bus Company depots are still grouped with each other and not their respective boroughs in terms of oversight because of their predominantly interborough operations, aren't they? But that may be more inside baseball than is appropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. I would suggest using the briefer "MTA Regional Bus Operations depots in X" naming pattern. No reason to include the word "bus" twice. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Yonkers depot is part of the Bronx Division, is it not? I was thinking we should approach it the same way as Fresh Pond and Grand Avenue, since they're in Queens, but officially part of the Brooklyn Division. And I agree with you about not using the word "bus" twice. I started leaning towards "Depots of MTA Regional Bus Operations in X," but your idea for names is good too. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Has anybody started working on these yet? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it too late to oppose a split? I don't see what is the problem with one big article or the advantage of five or six smaller articles (except maybe for people who read the article on their phones), unless there is a technical or style issue I'm not aware of. I would think that a person would want to read about all or at least many of the depots, as well as the former ones, and not just the ones in a single division. If you split them, one would now have to navigate through several "sub-articles", and the bus depot article itself is a "sub-article" of the RBO article, which in turn is a stem of of the MTA and NYCTA articles. If someone is looking for a single depot, they could just search for it and be redirected. You could also argue that because some of the depots are not in the same borough as their division and/or serve routes with multiple borough designations (Kingsbridge is in Inwood but part of the Bronx Divison; Eastchester and College Point share express routes; Grand Avenue and Fresh Pond are in Queens but are part of the Brooklyn Division, and serve both "B"- and "Q"-prefixed routes), a reader not versed in the agency structure would get confused looking for depots by borough instead of by division. Tdorante10 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue of depots in a different borough than the division they serve could be explained in the articles. Also I'd think that somebody who want's to look for specific depots will still be redirected to those divisions. If you want East New York Depot or Fresh Pond Depot, it'll take you to the Brooklyn page. Yonkers or Kingsbridge, it'll take you to the Bronx page, Yukon or Castleton it'll take you to the Staten Island, Mother Hale or Tuskegee Airmen will redirect you to Manhattan, Casey Stengel, Jamaica, or College Point will take you to Queens, etcetera. And the former depots will be redirected to the borough articles too. The Central Maintenance Depots can be left on the existing page, and I'm open to the Crosstown Depot being left there as well, considering it's current use for paint and Access-A-Ride storage. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTD (talk • contribs)
The problem is what about the reader who knows where the depot is, but doesn't know the name. They're the ones who would be confused by the depots that are in one borough but part of a different division. Especially if the title is "in *borough*" and not "in *borough* division", as the former is a geographic name.
I'm thinking Tdorante10 may be correct. There's really no need to split the article; the former concerns about page length aren't what they used to be. oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
At this rate of expansion, though, it will be too big for such an article to navigate comfortably. Look at the recent problems with the Select Bus Service article; it suffered from template overload due to its size, and the overload was partly attributable to the article itself (but also to the included routemaps as well). I'm even considering splitting the separate depots and putting them into their own articles, making the current list article a summary of a list of depots. Meanwhile, we still have the SBS article problem... epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How should SBS routes be organized?

I need an opinion on how Select Bus Service routes should be organized in {{Select Bus Service}} and the "previous/next" SBS routes in inboxes. Tdorante10 and Kew Gardens 613 prefer sorting it by borough, but I prefer sorting by route number due to the low number of routes. epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I originally thought the low number of routes made the template itself unnecessary. But the fact that MTA plans to add more routes makes me change my mind about that. Cross-borough lines such as the Bx 12, M 60, etcetera has me agreeing with you. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've personally held the opinion that, should this exist, that it may make more sense to order it by implementation date, but that may not be immediately apparent to a user. OTOH, I feel like route number sorting is very arbitrary (since the number "12" in Bx12SBS doesn't really mean anything). But ultimately whatever you think the average reader will make the most sense out of, I'm down for -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it's been a few weeks. I'm gonna put out the navbox now and if anyone wants to reorder it they may. One final question though: should the title of the box be colorized turquoise (as the examples in my sandbox2 show), or just be left to the default? Tdorante10 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus route templates

Isn't there anyone working on new bus route navboxes for the Bronx and Staten Island? I could've swore User:Tdorante10 was working on one for the Bronx. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@DanTD: I just looked in my sandbox2, and yes there is a section for Template:Bronx bus routes. The reason I haven't started on the navbox itself is because there are only a few separate articles for Bronx routes (Bx1/2, Bx12, Bx15, Bx23), and I didn't want it to be deleted like the Queens navbox was in 2010 (deletion log). Of course, this was months ago. I think both Bronx and Staten Island boxes should be created, though the Staten Island one should be held off until a few articles on those routes are created. I think there could also be a Select Bus Service navbox. Tdorante10 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we should split off the SBS routes from the main article, as DanTD suggested just two sections above. epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I have drafts of the Bronx and SBS navboxes in my sandbox; I think the SBS one is ready to go. Tdorante10 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think the SBS routes should be ordered by number, not by prefix. There are so few SBS routes that ordering them by prefix is not worthwhile. epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, the SBS navbox is here. Now bring on the Bronx navbox, and if you can get some Staten Island ones later on, then go for it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

W train NYCS templates

It may be time to start preparing the following templates for the return of the W service this November 7. Also, the late-night R is being extended to Whitehall Street. I probably missed some templates, so feel free to correct me. epicgenius - (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Full list:

epicgenius - (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, the signage at 23rd Street and 28th Street has now been updated (not sure about other stations, but I'm assuming the MTA is putting signs up in advance, just as they've done at Lexington Avenue–63rd Street in preparation for the new eastern entrance). The entry signage at 23rd and 28th Streets (I don't have an image of this) now looks like (R) (W) instead of (N) (R) (W) or (N) (R). epicgenius - (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

LIRR Cars at Brooklyn Army Terminal

A lot of pictures of this have been loaded up lately. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But does anyone know what kind of car this former LIRR car is?
P75, I think (or a Metro-North ACMU, which was substantially identical, but never depowered). But don't quote me on that. oknazevad (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

10 cars or something else?

About this sign along the express track at Parsons Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line); ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this for telling motormen/motorwomen that the station can handle 10 car trains?
@DanTD: Its probably a stop point for the train operators. There are usually 4, 8, and 10 markers (for 60-foot car trains) in the stations which mark the stop points (and sometimes the location of punch boxes) for those train lengths, or the "S" for all trains to stop. If there's a reason it's not at the front/end of the station, it might be because the station is 660 feet instead of 600 from the days when the E and maybe the F ran 11 cars. Tdorante10 (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a ten car marker. IND express stations were all 660 feet long. E and F trains ran 11 cars during the 1950s. Local stations had to have their platforms lengthened. These markers are present in all stations so that the T/O doesn't overshoot the platform.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Rename and info coming soon. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake entrance

Hello all,

I am trying to categorize these two images uploaded from flickr.

I suppose that both are of the same object. The second one is in an album called Disney Hollywood Studios. When I come to commons, I see a category named Streets of America at Disney's Hollywood Studios, but I also see that it is nested in another category named Destroyed in the United States in 2016... How can I proceed from this point? Does anybody know anything about this fake entrance? By the way, the first image is in an album called Vacation - Florida June 2015 that is a little far from Hollywood... Vcohen (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This may shed a little light. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So, it is indeed in Hollywood. But why "Destroyed in 2016"? Vcohen (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually not in Hollywood, California, but Disney's Hollywood Studios, one of the parks at Walt Disney World in Florida. The park, which originally was the Disney–MGM Studios, is intended to be Disney's answer to Universal Studios Florida, being both a theme park and a working TV/film studio, though not much production actually happens there. This was part of the studio backlot made to resemble NYC. As part of a major overhaul of the park to add more Disney-owned characters, the area where is faux subway entrance was located got redeveloped. It's now the Muppet Courtyard, and the faux entrance has been demolished. oknazevad (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it no longer exists because Streets of America was demolished for Star Wars Land. I was there this September and it's not within the Muppet Courtyard, but a bunch of buildings waiting to be demolished for a new Millennium Falcon attraction. Sadly, the entrance was demolished a week before my trip to Disney. Actually, I was in Orlando proper when the entrance was demolished, so sadly no pics. epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the first one might've been used in B-rolls in the third season of "Girl Meets World." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite BDE

Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 30#Template:Cite BDE; {{Cite BDE}} is used in a fair number of NYCS articles. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingsbridge Road (IND Concourse Line)

Hello all,

The Kingsbridge Road (IND Concourse Line) article says that the upper mezzanine has an elevator "at NE corner of Grand Concourse and Kingsbridge Road" and the lower mezzanine "exit/entrance is not handicapped accessible." However, as far as I see, the Kingsbridge Road entrance leads to the lower mezzanine. Am I right? Vcohen (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "lower mezzanine" or south mezzanine at the intersection with Kingsbridge Road is accessible. I've been in that mezzanine several times, and that's where all the elevators are.Tdorante10 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Vcohen (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

35 or 36?

How many lines are there in the subway? The {{NYCS const}} template has been updated from 34 to 35. However, when I count them in the List of New York City Subway lines, I consistently get 36. Who is right? Vcohen (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vcohen: The article on List of New York City Subway lines has 36 rows in the table. Archer and 63rd are both double-counted, so if they are each counted once, it is 34 lines. The SAS increased the count from 35 to 36. epicgenius (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I counted the same way, but I was not sure it was correct. Vcohen (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Some trips

I am trying to summarize information about trains that make sporadic trips to a terminal different from their usual one. On one hand, there are regular patterns when two terminals serve a train more or less evenly (at least during certain time periods):

Train N/S Terminal for 50% Terminal for 50%
5 N Nereid Av Dyre Av
A S Lefferts Blvd Far Rockaway

My question is not about them. Below is a table with numbers of trips that I counted by the schedules:

Train N/S Usual terminal Sporadic terminal Trips (southbound + northbound)
2 S Flatbush Av New Lots Av 4 + 4
4 S Utica Av New Lots Av 4 + 1 (excluding late night trips)
5 S Flatbush Av Utica Av / New Lots Av 10 + 9 (only one northbound from New Lots Av)
A S Lefferts Blvd / Far Rockaway Rockaway Park 5 + 5
E N Jamaica Ctr 179 Street 7 + 4
N N Astoria 96 Street 6 + 7
W S Whitehall St 86 Street 3 + 3

What is our policy about them? Some of them appear in articles and templates, others do not. How many trips per day are enough for such a route to be worth mentioning? Vcohen (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think its good to discuss this, since there has been some disagreement on the W train page about the runs to/from Gravesend. I think its important to mention at least once in the article, and give a reason why if available (for example, the E goes to 179 because of capacity issues at Jamaica Center). As far as putting it in the lead and/or stations listing, it could depend on the frequency, or whether or not the trips are indicated in the public schedule. Another standard could be the MTA's system map, which shows the peak-direction 5 trips to Neried Avenue and the five A trains to Rockaway Park, but doesn't show the 2/4/5 New Lots/Utica trips, the E trips, N trips, or the W trips. I personally don't mind mentioning the short/alternate runs as much as possible, but some editors do; theoretically, it could confuse casual readers without proper context, making them think the train goes to that terminal on a regular basis when it doesn't.
Also, an IP editor (we know who it is) said the 86th Street trips for the W aren't in the schedule, but they are so there's no problem to mention it if that's the standard we go with. Tdorante10 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a good topic for discussion. I thought of it recently because of 2nd Ave and the half dozen rush hour N trains on it. I think that, while such atypical runs do deserve mention in the body text, I think putting the icons at the top of the infobox is WP:UNDUE. We're talking about between 5 and 8 trains out of the dozens that run on each station, route and line each day. They're minor variants usually caused by needing trains along the trunk and the arrangement of switches and terminals. They're just not significant enough for more than a passing mention.
It's certainly misrepresentative and potentially confusing for, to use the same example, the N train bullet to appear first and at the top of the Second Ave Subway article, as it did until I removed it last week; it gives the false impression that it's a regular line of the N train route, when it's distinctly not, appearing only as a footnote on the public timetable and nowhere on the map or station signage. oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS, looks like we had the same idea.
@Oknazevad: That's a really good point about the bullets, since in the articles for those stations (such as the SAS stations, 179, New Lots), the infobox "entrance sign" shows all the bullets even for the routes that only have a few trips to those stations. On the New Lots page, for instance, it reads "New Lots Avenue: "2" train"3" train"4" train"5" train" when it should only display the 3 and maybe the 4 train. Of course, then you would have to change or split up a bunch of the templates... Tdorante10 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. At our article 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway), the virtual sign at the top of the infobox shows N and Q bullets in something that looks just like an actual NYC Subway entrance sign. Except that if one actually goes to the station, there is no sign that looks like that at all. Which means that our banner is ficticious. That's just unacceptable for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You have convinced me. For instance, the 49th Street station has the N, Q, R, and W stopping there at different times. For someone who is quickly glancing at the page, they would think that the Q still stops there. It should instead read N R W. Should the bullets at the top only reflect weekday service?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. And the top banner on something like Union Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) should read "R" not "D N R", with the note about the D and N stopping during late nights in the "Services" section of {{NYCS}}. After all, these late-night services do stop there and it is on the map. However, 75th Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) and Briarwood (IND Queens Boulevard Line) should still say "E F" since that is on the map. Prince Street (BMT Broadway Line) and the three other Broadway local stations should say "N R W" too since the N stops there during the daytime on weekends. Otherwise, articles like 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway) should only say what's on the daytime map, and note the rush-hour service elsewhere as well as in the lead of the article. epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I just made edits to New Lots Lines station headers. New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line) now only displays "3" in header. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought we just go by what the service guide says [1]. It mentions the E's rush hours trips to Jamaica/179th Street and 2, 4, and 5's trips to Utica/New Lots, but not the N via 2nd Avenue or the W to Brooklyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.99 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We should go by what services are displayed on the real-life name signs. epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think for stations the infobox should reflect the real world signs. For lines, it should list the standard routes that appear on the map for daytime. In both cases, late night, weekend, and oddball rush hour trains like these mentioned here should be mentioned only below standard service, not as the first service listed, as the Second Ave stations currently and misleadingly do. Just because the MTA always lists the routes in alphabetical order doesn't mean we have to. We should group them by service periods instead of using the confusing (and outdated) time period icons. (Seriously, the MTA no longer uses them, I don't know why we still use them at all when simple words are much more self-explanatory.) oknazevad (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The ordering is in alphabetical or numerical order. Rush-hour-only or nights-only services appear based on whether they come first in the alphabet or in the number system. Other such orderings are unnecessary because in the real-world signs, services are arranged in numerical then alphabetical order, regardless of how long each service serves each station on each day. epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
And I'm saying we don't need to do that, because it's misleading. I mean, why would we list in alphabetical order a service that he MTA doesn't even list on the signs. We are not beholden to that standard if it makes the article less useful for readers. oknazevad (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't get why we should rearrange the order based on how many hours per week a certain service serves a station. It's confusing. What I am doing is dropping these rush hour and late night only services from the header, bypassing the problem completely. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I think I've fixed all the headers. Feel free to correct me if I missed anything. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What should we do with the "next station" templates? I think the optimal way is to omit the additional rush hour trips, but to keep the late night ones. Vcohen (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the headers (which do look better), but the areas below in the infobox under the "services" parameter. Those are more logically grouped by time of day then straight alphabetical. Sorry for the confusion. As for the next station succession boxes, maybe a separate set for overnights? oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the next station templates, I'd support keeping the late night ones, although there should be distinction between late night service replacing daytime service (like the E on Queens Blvd) vs. additional late night service (like the 4 local on Lexington). Maybe the ones replacing should be a parenthetical note [e.g. "R towards Bay RIdge–95th Street (E towards World Trade Center late nights)"] and the latter would be noted just like an additional service, with a note that it only runs late night [e.g. "6 towards Pelham Bay Park / 4 towards Woodlawn late nights"]. I'm not saying this is what to do, simply an idea so that we can try to be somewhat consistent moving forward. Also, the current phrasing of the infrequent rush hours trips (as per the beginning of this section) on articles like 96th Street is "("N" train rush hours)", and I think that's placing undue weight on the service. Stations on the New Lots Line, (e.g. Van Siclen Avenue) use references to note "occasional service," and something along those lines (or at least that wording) might be better. -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
For the "Services" part of the info box, I think the late night services should be left as is. The rush hour services, though, should be moved to the very end of each template, as is oknazevad's idea. As for the next station templates, the rush hour and late night services should be moved to after the daytime services, with the late night services coming before the rush hour services if needed. No new templates need to be created. epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rellmerr: This setup is already in effect in the articles for stations where only one service serves that platform during the daytime, like Lafayette Avenue. It looks awkward if there are two or more services, and then a parenthetical note. epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I was originally looking at Lexington, where at least in the downtown direction, that setup is incorrectly applied (i.e. if the setup was consistent with your example, it'd imply that the 6 towards Brooklyn Bridge doesn't run late night. see 103rd Street). It actually totally slipped my mind that two services run on QBL daytime, so I do agree that it'd look weird with multiple services and then a parenthetical note. I don't know if we're going to get a perfect system out of this (nor am I sure if one is needed, honestly). I still stand by my point regarding using what's currently done on New Lots stations for situations like the rush hour N trains to 96 St. (Also I did see you fix the headers, they're better this way IMO, thanks!). -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 12:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn;t realize it could be interpreted that the 6 runs during days only. I've reformatted these templates to reduce ambiguity. Thanks for the heads-up. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So, what is our conclusion? For example, the New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line) article lists "special rush hour trips" for the 2, 4 and 5 trains, as both Services at the station and Next north in the Station succession, while the total number of trips for all these trains together at the station is 8 southbound and 6 northbound a day. Vcohen (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New and old New Haven Line MUs at Grand Central

I see an M8 on the tracks off to the right of this platform. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, I'm not sure if the train next to it is an M2, M4, or M6.
It's an M6 set. They're triplexes (the middle car gives that away), while a close look shows it as having black window frames, which were unique to the M6s. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank God! We should find more M6's! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

IRT Flushing Line reconstruction image category

Some of you may know this (although I don't know how), but I recently created an IRT Flushing Line Reconstruction Projects category, and you can be sure that this category will grow and be subdivided by project. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates issue

Who's good with coordinates? This image of an R160 being hauled across the George Washington Bridge is incorrectly tagged as being on Bigler Street in Fort Lee between Main Street and Central Avenue. It's actually at the George Washington Bridge Plaza. That's the Lemoine Avenue Bridge over it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! There is a requested move discussion at Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue (IND Eighth Avenue Line)#Requested move 24 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Station article naming

While I did not know there was a move discussion until it popped up on my watchlist, I think it's probably a good idea to rename all station article titles to include "station" (partly per WP:USSTATION, and also because the current disambiguators are sometimes unnecessary and confusing). Is there a good reason to ignore the policy? Should an "official" RFC be started (or is there one already)? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(Pinging all participants in the RM: Pppery, epicgenius, Station1, Tdorante10, In ictu oculi, Kew Gardens 613, DanTD, Dicklyon, Daniel Case, Amakuru, Vcohen, Roman Spinner, Train2104, Useddenim, SkipperRipper, Captian Cavy and SMcCandlish. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

I don't think they're unnecessary at all, and I think the current WP:USSTATION policy has created confusion and made an overall mess of station articles throughout Wikipedia. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: Does it really matter if only some of the articles have disambiguators? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
They're more than just disambiguators. I'm not saying we should apply them to Grand Central Terminal, or Hoboken Terminal or Journal Square Transportation Center and the like, but those qualifiers aren't there for no reason. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: What do you mean by "more than just disambiguators"? I understand that some of them help by stating the system name, but most other railway systems don't have/need them. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
More of them had them until the campaign to eliminate them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: I guess if you wanted to keep some kind of identifier you could have "name subway station" (like Hammersmith tube station), but I don't think extra disambiguation is necessary. Was there a "campaign" outside US articles? Does it matter? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of the campaign was from within US articles (although plenty of people outside of the US were involved), and it's a bad one. All the NYC Subway stations are for specific lines, and belong with the names they're given. The non-subway stations belong with the names of the systems they're under (LIRR, Metro-North, New Jersey Transit, Newark Light Rail, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, Amtrak, etcetera). So yes, it does matter. Did you even read the statements from everybody who opposes it? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the previous policy was either no policy or rules limited to single systems (which ignored naming conventions for the rest of the world), and USSTATION is now a "generally accepted standard". I was never involved in the debate, so hopefully one of the other 16 people from the discussion will comment. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
And as I mentioned, the current "generally accepted standard" made a mess of too many articles. Forcing these standards on localized systems such as WP:Washington Metro and others have destroyed a more consistent pattern. The same would happen for New York City Subway stations. Also, from what I remember various RER stations in Paris, and U-Bahn stations in Berlin, Bonn, Munich, Vienna, and others had the same naming conventions, and everything seemed fine. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: Only some systems in Europe use the parentheses, which arguably makes it worse. For example, Munich's U-Bahn uses parenthetical disambiguators instead of "station", which seems fine but actually causes inconsistency due to the S-Bahn system using "station", so Munich Marienplatz station (U-Bahn and S-Bahn) but Sendlinger Tor (Munich U-Bahn), which is one station away. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy at WP:Article Titles is quite clear that titles should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. The title Junius Street (IRT New Lots Line) does not meet any of those criteria. It is not as recognizable as it should be because 99% of the English-speaking world does not know what "IRT New Lots Line" means without first reading the article; it's not as clear as it could be that the topic is a station. The natural way to refer to virtually any train station is Junius Street station. The current title is overprecise; titles are supposed to be as precise as necessary, but not more so. With only one Junius Street station, what line it's on is info that should be in the article but not the title. The title is obviously not as concise as it could be. And it is not consistent with other train stations around the world, or even other NY subway stations, some of which use just "NYC Subway" and some use the enigmatic (to most readers) acronyms BMT, IND, and IRT. It's also wrong to refer to these parenthetical additions as disambiguation in most cases; disambiguation is necessary only when there are two or more articles that would otherwise use the same name, such as Wall Street station. Of course, WP:IAR is also policy, and that's what's happening here, but when the average reader's needs are considered, as opposed to editors', there's no good reason for the current set-up in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right, "it's wrong to refer to it as disambiguation." It's part of the station name, and therefore the reader does not know what it is "without first reading the article," exactly like he does not know that about any article name before the article is read. Vcohen (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that "(IRT New Lots Line)" is part of the station's name. Station1 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, its commonly used name is Junius Street (3/4). However, the train routes change too frequently, so they cannot be used in article names, and line names, which are more stable, are used instead. Vcohen (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the routes are included in the name or not, the fact that the name of the station includes one parenthetical term does not justify including a different one. Pppery 22:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
In theory, I agree that if there's no ambiguity, it could be called "Junius Street station". But in practice, this is exceedingly unwieldy and the costs (having to retarget hundreds of templates, and losing clarity as to which line a station is on just by looking at the title) outweigh the benefits (presumably shortening some station titles, which wouldn't necessarily work for about half the articles about NYC Subway stations because many titles would be lengthened due to many, many station names being the same. Also, many of the proposed new titles are very similar to titles that are ambiguous, such as 103rd Street–Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line) vs. any of the other "103rd Street" stations in the system). I'd be open to discussion of a project-wide renaming for the reader's sake, though, but it needs to involve discussion about compound titles like 103rd Street.
(As a side note Station1, the labels IRT, IND, and BMT are still very much in use even by the general public, though less often than before. Just today I actually heard the phrase "Flushing IRT", for instance.) epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Should an RFC be drafted somewhere? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Even with the "station" attached, all these street names could be anywhere. The current naming convention is more specific. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: If we don't come to a conclusion by the end of this discussion, then yes, maybe an RFC would be the best way to move forward. epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop referring to USSTATION as a "policy"; it is not one. Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that following the actual policy of WP:CONSISTENCY is the correct plan. That's one of the core WP:CRITERIA for article titles, and it trumps concerns that in one case or another having "station" in the title might not strictly be necessary. "Over-disambiguation" or "unnecessary disambiguation" concerns always take a back seat except in unusual cases where one of the other criteria is triggered. An example might be WP:CONCISE: It would not make sense to add "station" to something that already has a synonym in it; "Foo Terminal station" would be redundant because a terminal in this sense is a station, unless the terminal in question was for a different transit system B and the station is the connection station of transit system A to transit system B, e.g. a bus station at a ferry terminal).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

R39 (New York City Subway car)

Do we really need an article for that never-built car type? I noticed R55 (New York City Subway car) and R83 (New York City Subway car), both also unbuilt NYC Subway car models, were originally articles, but turned into redirects to New York City Subway rolling stock, so should we do the same for R39? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.77.131 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object, but seeing how there's some substantial information on that article compared to the other articles (R55 and R83 when they were single articles), I'd proudly leave it alone, but again that's just my judgment. I really wouldn't care what is done with the article space. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well guys, guess what...

It's been over five years since I made my last edit, but I am BACK on Wikipedia and ready to contribute. This was the first WikiProject that I joined back in 2006, and I am proud of the progress that has been made since then. I've noticed a lot of new contributors to the project, and I am willing to lend a helping hand, and also appreciate any help that anyone here would be willing to offer to get me back up to speed. But I'm back on, ready to help, and it's good to be with the WikiProject that I started on over 10 years ago. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Wikiproject. I am Kew Gardens 613. Over the last few years, I have helped make articles such as Staten Island Railway, IND Queens Boulevard Line and New York City Subway good articles. I have also added significant content to Second Avenue Subway, Staten Island Tunnel, IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line and so on. I have helped create articles such as History of the Staten Island Railway, North Shore Branch, and South Beach Branch. I have added references to many articles, and I have corrected the station opening dates on many articles. I have expanded the historical content on many pages, and I have updated information with changes, fare increases, and ridership updates. It is great to have someone who used to work on the project back here. The more help the better. If you need any assistance please contact me, User:Tdorante10 or User:epicgenius. Thanks for coming back! I wish you the best.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Aloha! Welcome back! oknazevad (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's nice to see new people involved in this project, and a lot of new people I must say. I'm quite impressed. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

N train to 96th and W to 86th fiasco

Well currently have a problem here. All subway line articles are meant to show WHAT and WHERE the route goes to, even though it's not on the offical map. Everytime I edit the W article to show that it goes to 86th Street, a certain person likes to undo it because "it's not on the service guide". Neither is the N to 96th, but that's shown on its page. We are suppose to be using OFFICAL documents to show where trains go, that means N to 96th, W to 86th, 5 to 241, and so forth. If we can't do this, then the N to 96th should NOT exist on the N page. What are your thoughts? 2607:FB90:186F:CFDA:F4E3:4A5E:BCB1:BA88 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this above; I personally feel that the limited service holds a fig-leaf of weight, even if only weakly. The information is available to refer to, so why not use it? I went ahead and updated the IRT station listing tables last week to note the stations that some trains start and end at that is not their normal terminal, and I want to do the same for the BMT/IND stations. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Guys, if we are going to start including the limited Ws that serve Brooklyn, we will need to update the templates accordingly to reflect it. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Image Progress Report; April 2017

I'm sure everybody here knows I went up to NYC back in March and snapped a lot of pictures of the subways and train stations. Unfortunately, while there have been some successes on my part, I ended up getting less than 1/4 of what I wanted, partially due to the snow, a cold, and some MTA service suspensions.
On my first day in the city I was able to grab some BMT-related pics of Jamaica Center - Parsons/Archer (Archer Avenue Lines), then after sitting on a leaking R32, which I reported to the MTA, a lot of pics of Sutter Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line), then I was able to grab that staircase scene at New Lots Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) and expand East 105th Street (BMT Canarsie Line) to the platform and the other side of the station. Despite my inability to transfer between Livonia Avenue and Junius Street due to construction at the latter, I got some more images from Clark Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) including the entrances within the Hotel St. George, but I should've taken an interior shot of the doors over the Henry Street entrance to see if they have Helvetica signs for Henry Street. After this I grabbed shots of the ventilation tunnel entrance at York Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line), which included a shot of the braille sign and a yellow staircase sign that came out so blurry I refuse to add it. Later I was able to get back down to Avenue H (BMT Brighton Line) and get some images of the southbound station house. Finally, I went back to the IND Fulton Street Line and captured Van Siclen Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line), where my camera batter died, and I was forced to use my cell phone. I wanted to walk from there to Van Siclen Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) and snap pictures of that on the same day, but I didn't have enough time to finish my quest before I had to go to some relatives house and have dinner. Doing all this required clinching the Franklin Avenue Shuttle three times. On the other hand, I was able to capture a couple of NRHP listed sites in Jamaica and Dumbo.
The next day, despite major limitations of service that converted the 7 train into an express and closed the Steinway Tunnels, not to mention a similar fiasco with the Lexington Avenue Tunnel, I grabbed a Harlem Line train at Harlem-125th Street (Metro-North station) and was able to expand the gallery for Hawthorne (Metro-North station). Despite calling for expansion of the gallery of Katonah (Metro-North station) rather than the former New York Central Railroad station house, I was able to expand both, as well as a few other sites in the village. I wish I had taken a shot or two of a pizza joint I ate at while waiting for the train back to Grand Central Terminal, where I had to grab a 42nd Street Shuttle train to the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line down to 34th Street-Pennsylvania Station. Sorry I wasn't able to find the painted on "IRT Subway" sign that User:Vcohen was so interested in.
The day after this, I took the chance to expand Mamaroneck (Metro-North station), which I got a lot of shot from. My mistake was not capturing the staircases from Mamaroneck Avenue where the old New York, Westchester and Boston Railway station house used to be. Nevertheless, I was able to carry out some lesser expansion of Harrison (Metro-North station), plus a lot of non-railroad related sites in southeastern Westchester and Nassau Counties.
After putting up with the storm delays from Winter Storm Stella (which I'm sorry I wasn't able to grab any pictures of), I finally got some needed shots of the IND Queens Boulevard Line, despite accidentally leaving my extra SD card at home, and struggling to find a reasonably priced substitute, not to mention breaking my ass walking up and down Queens Boulevard to find the Best Buy in Rego Park, or someplace else that could sell me one. When I finally found it I was able to get 65th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line), then one image from Forest Hills-71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). After grabbing some shots at Jamaica–Van Wyck (IND Archer Avenue Line), I had to invade a closed construction site to get the new entrance to Briarwood (IND Queens Boulevard Line), then the painted LIRR sign at Sutphin Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line), and finally the 153rd Street entrances for Parsons Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line), which was my last subway station for March 2017.
Now the bad news; Many of the stations I wanted to get picture of, I couldn't get anywhere near. Besides Van Siclen, a lot of other BMT Jamaica Line stations that I wanted would've either taken too much of my time, although 121st Street (BMT Jamaica Line) had some construction on the Manhattan-bound platform that made me suspect that construction might've also gone below the tracks. So not much of a chance of getting that old radiator and meter readers I had my heart set on. I couldn't even get close to any Bronx Subway stations, nor could I get to expand Williams Bridge (Metro-North station), Wakefield (Metro-North station), or Fleetwood (Metro-North station) in Mount Vernon, despite having been on the Harlem Line on the second day. Staten Island Railway was even worse. I had to abort that trip completely. The only Long Island Rail Road related image I was able to get was the old freight house at Bayside (LIRR station) and that wasn't even a view that I was looking for. As for the Metro-North Hudson Line, I had to make a detour into Yonkers as I was going home and grab Ludlow (Metro-North station) at 4-something in the morning while leaving my car running in the parking lot, where I was spotted by a car driven by some rent-a-cop or local neighborhood watch or someone like that, just as I was getting ready to take off. I don't know if the guy/girl reported me or what. But I still missed my chance to get Ossining (Metro-North station), Crugers (Metro-North station), Garrison (Metro-North station), and Cold Spring (Metro-North station) not to mention the hopes of getting the former stations of the Park Hill Incline that used to connect to the Getty Square Branch of the Old Putnam Line. Missing those really pisses me off! Then on my way out, I saw sites in Southwest Yonkers, the West Bronx and Upper Manhattan that really intrigued me. The next time I come up there (hopefully in November), I want those parts of the city and Yonkers, and I want them BAD! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not interested in the painted sign, but in the gate, leading from the Penn Station to the subway. :^) Vcohen (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line)

Recent edits say that station is the M's "southern" terminal on weekends, but "northern" terminal on weekends and nights. However, the schedule shows Metropolitan Avenue as the "southern" terminal at all times, even though "southbound" M trains run on the same track as "northbound" J trains and vice-versa between Essex Street and Myrtle Avenue. Can someone add a source proving the recent changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.79.240 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Gradients in headers of track layout

Last night I noticed that the track layout diagrams for Bergen Street (IND Culver Line) was gradiented from Sixth Avenue orange to Crosstown green. I removed it, because I found it superfluous/distracting, and due to the graduality of the gradient, it was not at all obvious that one end was supposed to be the F and the other the G; I didn't realize until I actually viewed the code. Then I realized that other stations like Hoyt-Schermerhorn do this too. Rather than remove en masse, I'm going to seek input here. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I agree that it may not be obvious in some cases. The gradient is used on the track maps for the seven other IND Culver Line stations that the F and G share, yet you didn't remove any of them for some reason. Actually, I don't think these gradients should be removed (with the exception of the gradient in Queens Plaza (IND Queens Boulevard Line), Jackson Heights–Roosevelt Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), and Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), which are three colors so they may be unreadable). There are some more common gradients like red/green. orange/blue, and orange/yellow used for the track maps.
If two or more services serve a platform, I think the track map should indicate the route colors of the daytime services that serve these platforms. The other option is to leave it at the default color, #000000, but the way the track maps are colored these tend to indicate that a station is unused. So, your removal makes it so that now, all the other stations' track layouts have headers whose colors correspond to their services' colors, except for these eight stations. The graduality is supposed to indicate that the station is serviced by trains from these trunk lines, so that's why it's not black. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
So I unhid the gradients for the track layouts for 4 Av, 7 Av, 15 St, Ft Hamilton Pkwy, and Church Av. From unhiding the gradients, I could tell:
7 Av, 15 St, and Ft Hamilton Pkwy's gradients are hard to see, since the track box is so narrow.
4 Av and Church Av's gradients are easier to see since the track boxes are wider.
The Bergen St track box is only 4 icons wide, which makes it hard to see the gradient. Anything with 5 icons or more wide tends to be easier to see. epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I would've hidden them all, but rather than get all of them reverted I decided to do one and ask here. From a reader's POV, I wouldn't even associate the header with the color of the service serving that station. It seems like a reasonable idea for one-color stations, just for the sake of picking a color, since the NYCT colors aren't garish. But when multiple colors need to be shown, the gradient is really distracting and draws attention. Perhaps we should use a generic gray or something like that. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
      Track layout
Legend
to Union Tpke
to 75 Av
to Jamaica Yard
to 67 Av
to Roosevelt Av
I would agree with a generic color. But gray is used by the L and shuttles already. I think we can do {{colorbox}} instead, like the one at right for Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). For the more common gradients, like red/green, blue/orange, and orange/yellow, I think we can keep the gradients since they aren't as distracting. The orange-yellow gradient is more subtle, but the track maps use a black text, so there really aren't any visibility issues. For red-green and blue-orange, there are minimal visibility issues due to these pairs both using white text; same with blue-brown, orange-brown, and blue-gray. I'm only worried about some of the more unconventional gradients like Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway) and the three QBL stations. epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need any of the track diagrams to have color headers. Station belong to lines, and lines don't have colors, services do. It just seems unneeded decoration that serves to distract, especially with the gradients. oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding lines don't have colors: Not necessarily, trunk lines do have color. So even under your plan, all trunk line track maps should have headers the color of the trunk, while non-trunk line track maps should be near black. epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Would the background colo[u]r be removed from the headers without a gradient as well? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I don't think so, since the single colors are easier to read off of, and less distracting. epicgenius (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There aren't that many "shared" lines in the system - QBL local/exp, Jamaica south, 4 Av express, Culver north, Hoyt-Schermerhorn, WPR south, Brighton express, Eastern Pkwy express. The rest are either a trunk in Manhattan or only served by one color service anyway. How about we use the full time primary service color for stations where that is clear (R for QBL local, J for Jamaica south, F for Culver, A for Hoyt, 2 for WPR, Q for Brighton, 2 for all stations on Eastern Parkway) and gray for those stations where it is very unclear (QBL/4 Av express). – Train2104 (t • c) 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Track layout
Legend
to Bergen St
to Brooklyn Museum
@Train2104: I can see where you're going, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. The track maps are already colored in as few colors as possible, to the point where the maps' headers are only colored based on the service(s) that are listed at the station's entrance and on the official daytime subway map (for instance, Parsons Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line)'s track map only has the F color because the station entrance sign and the daytime map both say that it's only served by the F).
For QBL local, the yellow color isn't that clear, and it becomes even less clear for situations like Hoyt and Culver where two or more different trunk services stop at the station at all times. For these cases, it would be better to make these all gray or almost-black to remove any misconceptions that the station is only served by that trunk line. The majority of local stations' track maps are one color, anyway. For example, see the track map at right that is posted on Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line)'s page, even though the station is also served by the 4 at night. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Late night service derivatives

In List of New York City Subway services#Time periods, the part that mentions late night service and its derivatives are now outdated. Prior to June 2015 before the {{NYCS|J}} was extended to Broad Street full time, we had derivative 5a that mentioned service that ran to Broad Street from 5 a.m. Monday to 1 a.m. Saturday, and derivative 5b that mentioned service that dropped out at Chambers Street from 1 a.m. Saturday to 5 a.m. Monday. In addition, we had derivatives 5c and 5d that mentioned R trains that bypassed 45th and 53rd Street going northbound at night and stopping at those same stops going southbound at night. All J trains now terminate at Broad Street at all times, and all R trains stop at 45th and 53rd Street at all times. Can I remove these late night derivatives? —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. Looking at that article, I'm not sure why we have headway and frequency charts by line and time period though. This is subject to frequent revision and there are many long term supplements implemented out of the public's eye. Wikipedia is not a timetable. A simple summary of "most services run every 2-5 minutes during rush hour, every 20 minutes at night, and every 4-12 minutes at other times" ought to be enough. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The only time we would have to worry about updating the frequencies is during the system picks, which is twice a year (once in June and once in November/December). I personally don't have a problem with it being there, but I wouldn't object to it being removed or replaced. However I don't want to jump the gun on a major issue like that at the moment.
I will remove the outdated derivatives pending further consensus if anyone else wants to weigh in. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I already removed the derivatives. By the way, WP:NTT says Simply replicating information from published timetables, or repeating information (such as train times or service hours) which is subject to frequent change, may be considered directory writing. Distinguish between stating, for example, that a station is served by a certain number of trains per hour, and specifying the times of those trains. It says nothing about omitting clarifying information such as "this station is only served on weeknights, not on weekend nights." Since the picks are twice annually, we can worry about timetable updates then, but these updates are relatively infrequent compared to the frequently-changing nature of Wikipedia. epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Subway terminal list, in need of an overhaul

Good day guys, how you are all doing well.

So, I would like for us to go over the subway terminal list, as I feel that many of the many terminals that certain lines have (e.g. put-ins, reroutes, different routing and such) are not listed. I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a timetable, but I strongly feel that updating the list to reflect current patterns do have encyclopedic value and can be verified based off of data that is publicly made available by the MTA, as a lot of transit apps for iOS and Android devices (Transit App, as well as Bus New York City) are based off of this data. There are even run sheets that are sometimes made available to make note of these changes as well. Subway runs are generally changed twice a year (in the fall and in the winter), so it would not be too much trouble for us to give the list updates when needed for Wikipedia. I can compile a list at my sandbox subpage that shows a rough draft of the many terminals that a route has, whether they are advertised on the MTA maps and schedules or not, because these terminals do exist (such as some B trains that drop out at Kingsbridge Road in the a.m. rush, and some 5 trains that terminate at 241st Street in the a.m. rush, etc. Looking forward to hearing everyone else's input. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

B trains dropping out at Kingsbridge and 5's terminating at 241 are not scheduled terminals, they are on the fly dispatch decisions. Only those origins and destinations listed in the timetable or GTFS equivalent are scheduled terminals (2 to New Lots, etc). — Train2104 (t • c) 22:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You're actually mistaken, as they are on the schedule. On the timetable for the B train, there's a note that states there are three trips that drop out at Kingsbridge Road. (see here) On the 5 train timetable, there's a time listing for Nereid Avenue in the morning (there are actually two, but the other is not included possibly due to space limitations in the document; See here). An "on the fly dispatch decision", as you would say, is if a 2 train is rerouted from its normal West Side routing onto the East Side, and if a 5 train is rerouted from its East Side routing onto the West Side, for whatever reasons. That right there has no reason to be on Wikipedia, but listing terminals that are actually served by certain trains, even if it is just a handful of trains, has grounds for being documented on Wikipedia, especially if they are documented on some form of MTA literature. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right about Kingsbridge Road, oops on my part. The 5 has a listing for Nereid Avenue, but I see no mention of 241 St in the timetable. — Train2104 (t • c) 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries man. If you look on the transit app (free download) and look at data for the 5 train, you can actually click on the Wakefield - 241st Street stop and it will give two dropoff times, at 10:31 and 10:58 a.m., weekday mornings only). —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have generated a list of the terminals for the A Division of the subway at my sandbox subpage here. This data is from several transit apps, such as the Transit App (for iOS and Android) and Bus New York City (for iOS), which in turn comes from the MTA's GTFS data feed. I've only done the A division as of right now, except for the 42nd Street Shuttle (no need to do it, we already know the terminals, lol). —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have proceeded in editing the tables for the individual subway articles for the A Division (exception being the 42nd Street Shuttle) to reflect the correct alternative terminals based off the list I generated on my sandbox subpage, which I gathered from transit apps that uses MTA' GTFS data. I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have in regards to these changes, as well as some other edits that I'd like to carry out following consensus. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to look through all of that. All of the GTFS data is simplified here: http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/LineTrips.php I thought that it was consensus not to include all of these trips. I don't agree with that though.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'm bookmarking it now!
Hmm, interesting. Forgive me for my ignorance if you guys had already discussed this in the past, but I'm too lazy to dig the archives. Before I disappeared from Wikipedia, a lot of this information wasn't really available, so a lot of us never bothered to go too far with including every intricate detail. But in present day, the data is available to use, and we can make our articles reflect said data, so if it's there, why not use it? I strongly believe it to be of encyclopedic value, and with the subway picks updated twice a year based on ridership needs and such, it wouldn't be that much of a hassle to update the data as needed. I'd definitely like to start a discussion with the rest of the members of the project to see if they can be persuaded otherwise, as well as bring up some other concerns. In my defense, a lot of these notes that indicate "put-in" and "drop-out/short-turn" terminals are listed, but a vast majority of them are incorrect. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just recently, in the spirit of the UNDUE weight given to the N train at Second Avenue Subway (where the N bullet appeared first thing in the article despite not even appearing on the map at all), we decided that minor rush hour variants where only a handful of trains go to a terminal, even if they appear on the timetables, shouldn't be listed. See the SAS talk page. I advocated for this, because we do not want to confuse readers with minor details. As you note, this isn't a timetable, nor is it a specialist publication, it's a general-interest encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not giving undue weight doesn't mean giving zero weight. I agree that they shouldn't be everywhere, but perhaps there's an argument for mentioning them in the articles about the services. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
They are mentioned in the articles about the lines, but only in the body text, not the infoboxes (or at least the top sign-like image). The archived discussion is here. oknazevad (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the archived discussion. However, after reading it, I still think that no clear consensus was reached, as some people argued to remove the limited service from the "signs" that are on top of the infobox, yet I am still seeing them all over the place.
I am on Train2104's side on this one. The information is there, and we have multiple sources, even if they are only weakly, that makes them somewhat notable to include. It's not like we are listing reroutes (examples being 2 trains via East Side, 5 trains via West Side, A/C trains via Delancey Street station, and the like) that are subject to change, as they do on a daily basis. The only changes that should be included are the ones that are incorporated into the subway system pick. I completely understand where oknazevad is coming from completely, as he may find them confusing and inappropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia, but I have to disagree. There are some fig-leaf bits of information that is relatively steady and noteworthy to include, and, in my opinion, would benefit readers that come across these articles. I am willing to come to a compromise, however, and propose that if no one feels that the limited service doesn't hold weight to be mentioned across the WikiProject namespace that our articles fall under in a general sense, then we should at the very least make footnotes to mention the information wherever appropriate.
My stances on the limited services that are noteworthy, that merit encyclopedic value, and should be included no matter what (services that deviate off their normal routing, not short-turns) are as follows:
  • A trains to Rockaway Park: noted on the MTA map (and map service guide), timetable (both the route map and the time listing) and signage in the system (both inside the station and outside on station entrances between Beach 90th Street and Rockaway Park: Keep.
  • E trains to Jamaica - 179th Street: noted on MTA map service guide only (not on the map itself), timetable (time listing only, not on the route map itself) and signage in the system (only in Queens, but not in Manhattan): Keep.
  • N trains to 96th Street: noted only in the timetable as "train arrives/departs x amounts of minutes early/late at 96th Street, serving 2nd Avenue stations" and not on the timetable's route map, not included on the map at all, or on signage at all: honestly, I say keep, but if there is any opposition, at the very least make note of the Limited N's in the {{NYCS|N}} train article then.
  • W trains to Brooklyn: no mention of the trains going to Brooklyn at all on the MTA map or station signage, they are mentioned in the timetable (in the time listings, but not the timetable's route map, or on signage at all in the system. At the moment, the limited service is only mentioned on the {{NYCS|W}} article. If you guys think that it should be mentioned across the articles it falls under the WikiProject namespace and update the articles to include these trains to Brooklyn, be it the station listing in the W's article and the station articles in Brooklyn that these limited W's serve, I won't object to it, but certain precautions would have to be taken first. I also think it should be included in the subway terminal list article and be mentioned, in my opinion.
  • 2/4/5 trains to New Lots: mentioned on the map service guide (not the map itself), schedules (in the time listing, not on the route map), not on signage in the system: Keep.
  • 5 trains to Wakefield - 241st Street: only one mention of it is in the schedules (there are actually two, one was probably not included due to space limitations in the timetable), not on the map or on signage in the system: all I did was make a note of this in the {{NYCS|5}} article in the station listing under the notes section to mention that some trains continue to 241st Street in the a.m. rush.
Short-turns and put-ins that should only be mentioned in the station listing of the service articles, and the stations that these short-turns/put-ins occur, as well as (possibly) the subway terminal list, are as follows (and should only be mentioned once):
  • A trains to/from Dyckman Street and 168th Street
  • B trains to Kingsbridge Road
  • D trains to/from Bedford Park Boulevard, and possibly that one train that starts at Broadway - Lafayette Street
  • E trains to/From Kew Gardens - Union Turnpike
  • F trains to/from Kings Highway and Church Avenue
  • J trains to/from Broadway Junction
  • L trains from East 105th Street, and to/from Myrtle / Wyckoff
  • N trains to/from 86th Street
  • R trains to 59th Street, from 36th Street, and to/from Whitehall Street
  • 1 trains to/from 238th Street, 215th Street and 137th Street
  • 2 trains to/from Nereid Avenue
  • 3 trains from 145th Street
  • 4 trains to/from Bedford Park Boulevard, Kingsbridge Road, and Burnside Avenue
  • 5 trains to/from East 180th Street and Bowling Green
  • 6 trains to/from Parkchester, Third Avenue/138th Street, and 125th Street
  • 7 trains to/from Willets Point and 111th Street
Sorry for the lengthy reply, proving an argument is not an easy task at all! Talk to you all in the morning. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Stepping back into this, I just feel like unneeded to make a better point than I did. Essentially, yes, we can find sources verifying these trips, but the point remains that, for a general interest encyclopedia, not a specialist fan website, this level of detail is too much and unneeded. We're supposed to give an overview for the unfamiliar, not write a guidebook for obsessives. The average reader doesn't care, and is possibly even confused by these trivial details. There are places on the internet for railfans to learn this stuff. Wikipedia is too generalist for it. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on that one; if the information is there, why not let it be provided? Besides, it's not like we are stating the times and intervals of which these trips occur, nor are we doing so for the thousands of trips that occur in the system each and every day, which, in this case, would be inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BMT All-four?

You may be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-four (public transport). Personally, I've never heard of this topic before, nor can I find anything on nycsubway.org to corroborate it. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the article was first written by Cecropia, a long-time user and bureaucrat. He had initially participated in the WikiProject up till 2007-2008, and I wouldn't suspect him of creating an original research article. But if anything, an article like this would best be integrated in the BMT article. I will notify him that his article is being nominated for deletion so he can have a say in the fate of the article if he chooses. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

R44/R46 length

While they are technically referred to as 75 foot cars, since they are close to being 75 feet long, the correct length of the R44s and R46s are actually 74 feet and 8.5 inches (over the anticlimbers) according to the R44 and R46 datasheets at NYCSubway.org. I will be modifying the infoboxes for those two articles to correct the length of the cars. Imdanumber1 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also done the same for the R68 and R68A as well. Imdanumber1 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Station complex list

Came across a list of the station complex names from the MTA website. Raw coding is as follows:

14 St / 6 Av
14 St - Union Sq
149 St - Grand Concourse
161 St - Yankee Stadium
168 St - Washington Hts
Court Sq - 23 St
34 St - Herald Sq
4 Av - 9 St
42 St - Bryant Pk / 5 Av
Grand Central - 42 St
Times Sq - 42 St / Port Authority Bus Terminal
Lexington Av / 51 St
Lexington Av / 59 St
59 St - Columbus Circle
62 St / New Utrecht Av
Jackson Hts-Roosevelt Av / 74 St
Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr
14 St / 8 Av
Broadway-Lafayette St / Bleecker St
Borough Hall / Court St
Broadway Junction
Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall/Chambers St
Canal St
Chambers St / WTC / Park Place
Delancey St / Essex St
Franklin Av / Botanic Garden
Franklin Av
Fulton St
Metropolitan Av / Lorimer St
Myrtle - Wyckoff Avs
South Ferry / Whitehall
Jay St - MetroTech

I was thinking to moving some of the station complexes to these names above, with few exceptions:

  • I don't know what WP:MOS or WP:NAME says about using slashes in titles. I always thought that en dashes should be used in place of hyphens and slashes, but if there's no issue with the way the titles that have slashes are in the titles now, then we can leave them with the slashes.
  • "Washington Heights" in the 168th Street complex can probably remain left out, as "Washington Heights" is not widely known and not really used anywhere else in MTA nomenclature, like station signage or any of the schedules for the {{NYCS|1}}, {{NYCS|A}} or {{NYCS|C}}, or on the MTA map.

Any thoughts? I think that by going by an MTA source such as this list we won't have to worry about creating names that appear to be made up as this was an issue that was risen up in the past a very long time ago. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a great find. I'd be down with moving them, but also wonder about the slash vs dash issue. Wouldn't mind hearing from others first. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
How exactly did you access them? I am quite amazed. I would definitely move most of them. 168th Street can stay where it's at. I don't know whether we can add "23rd Street" to the title of the Court Square complex page (it was briefly moved to that title before reverting back to "Court Square" few years ago). I definitely want to hear her others' take on this, though.Roadrunner3000 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys! I created a key here, then after accepting the terms and conditions at the bottom of the page I was able to access a list of both real time and static data feeds here. You can also retrieve the latitude and longitude for station locations too! This will help out tremendously if we decide to add the extra information to our station infoboxes. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:NC-SLASH, article names can contain slashes if appropriate, but it creates a relatively minute issue in the talk namespace of the article, since slashes in the talk namespace is a method of archiving discussions. For example, the {{NYCS|J/Z}} article's talk page will provide a link that directs to the J article underneath the title at the top of the page. I think using slashes in the past was frowned upon because of creating subpages in the namespace. It appears now that subpages in the main namespace are disabled, and it will not pose a problem if we use slashes in our titles. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting find, thanks for posting. As for renaming some station complexes: epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we can rename some complexes' pages, like Metropolitan Avenue/Lorimer Street (New York City Subway) and 62nd Street/New Utrecht Avenue (New York City Subway). However, that is changing the order of the different terms in the page title, which is superficial. I definitely agree with Jackson Heights–Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street (New York City Subway) and Chambers Street/World Trade Center/Park Place (New York City Subway)|, although the latter has a lot of slashes in the title. I also agree that 168th Street–Washington Heights (New York City Subway) is a little overkill. epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
So, here are the articles of all the station complexes that exist, and the ones in italics are the ones that we would move them to with the reason provided, mainly to mimic the MTA's list:
So that's the list. I guess I can wait until the end of today, or possibly even until tomorrow, to see where everyone stands. Afterwards, we can make the moves all at once, fix the double redirects, and update our naming convention. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Imdanumber1: Isn't one day pretty short for discussion? I think a week is fine, since it seems to be the standard discussion period for requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, etc.
Anyway, I completely agree with the following: epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Court Square–23rd Street (New York City Subway)
  • Lexington Avenue–51st Street (New York City Subway)
  • Jackson Heights–Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street (New York City Subway)
  • 14th Street/Eighth Avenue (New York City Subway)
  • Delancey Street/Essex Street (New York City Subway)
  • Franklin Avenue/Botanic Garden (New York City Subway)
  • Metropolitan Avenue/Lorimer Street (New York City Subway)
  • South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)
On a matter of grammatical ultra-correctness, I feel like Myrtle/Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway) is incorrect because, it should be Myrtle Avenue/Wyckoff Avenue (New York City Subway) if they wanted to separate the names completely, or Myrtle–Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway) if they wanted it compounded (which seems to be the case here).
On the same token, let's keep Chambers/WTC/Park Pl where it is right now, since the new name is trivial.Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway) (you made a mistake) is ambiguous and can be confused with Franklin Avenue/Botanic Garden (New York City Subway). We already have enough on our hands with Fulton Street (New York City Subway), which incidentally is no longer confused with Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway) under the proposed move, but Franklin Av/Fulton St is now confused with Franklin Av/Botanic Garden instead of Fulton St in Manhattan.
Finally, I'm not sure if the flips of Borough Hall/Court Street (New York City Subway), 62nd Street/New Utrecht Avenue (New York City Subway), and Broadway–Lafayette Street/Bleecker Street (New York City Subway) are really necessary. I don't disagree with the moves (since we could definitely add the slash for Court Street), but the flipping is unnecessary and trivial. If you asked a random 7 train rider if the name of the 61st Street station in Woodside is 61st Street–Woodside (IRT Flushing Line) or Woodside–61st Street (IRT Flushing Line), and they'll probably answer by asking when the next 7 train is coming. I'm just saying that the reader won't even notice, and the rider doesn't care. epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Not a problem, I'm more than fine with waiting a week, just so we can hear everyone's input. In the past we used to wait a day or two, but I have no qualms with giving it some extra time.
I too am on the fence with Chambers-WTC/Park Place, which is why I don't necessarily care if it gets moved or not so it has all slashes. I think I get what you mean in regards to Myrtle/Wyckoff; my rationale for that move is because it's an intersection, and a lot of articles that are at intersections have slashes in them already (well, I wouldn't say all, but most of them do). Franklin Avenue/Fulton Street worries me a bit because while "Fulton Street" is seen on the R68 signs on the Shuttle, it's not seen on the map or on the schedules for the A, C or the Franklin Shuttle, so that's my rationale why I wouldn't include Fulton Street in the name (however, I could probably be convinced otherwise), but I do understand why it's titled the way it is though (to avoid confusion between Fulton Street in Manhattan and to avoid confusion with Franklin Avenue/Botanic Garden). —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If we decided to rename Lexington Avenue/51st–53rd Streets (New York City Subway) as Lexington Avenue–51st Street (New York City Subway), we should include "Lexington Avenue–53rd Street" as an old name for the IND Queens Boulevard Line platforms. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I would support a move of Myrtle–Wyckoff Avenues to Myrtle Avenue/Wyckoff Avenue. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
We could do that, but the official name is Myrtle <line break> Wyckoff Avs according to the map and the CSV link you posted yourself. Line break is usually replaced with endash in NYCPT naming parlance. So we can keep Myrtle-Wyckoff at its current title, and conduct all the other proposed moves. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Still going to allow an extra few days before we start moving the pages.
By the way, what would be an appropriate summary to use to cite the reason for the moves, in your opinion? —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest something like "Moved to correct name according to official MTA data: http://web.mta.info/developers/data/nyct/subway/StationComplexes.csv". epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Great! —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have created an update to the station naming convention (see Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Naming convention#Station complexes#Update for the update). If there are any additions or tweaking around of the words that anyone wants to make, feel free to do so. Tomorrow morning I will go ahead and mark off the station complexes that there are consensus to move according to the list I provided. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the Station naming convention page is not a talk page, so I hope that the discussion you created there will be removed. Anyway, I have some objections to it. 1. What do you mean saying "to merge the stations" in the context of stations named Canal Street? Are you planning to merge any existing articles or move existing text between existing articles? 2. Before making the move, I would suggest to create a table with the new article names. There are many sensitive details, such as spaces or abbreviations, that are better to be coordinated before the action and not after it. 3. I am not sure that Franklin Avenue–Fulton Street (New York City Subway) is a good idea. The complex name is Franklin Avenue. Fulton Street is its location only, and we should not create the impression that it's a part of its name. Vcohen (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I didn't post a discussion there, I updated the naming convention to reflect the decision we have reached to use the MTA's CSV document to update the station complex names to match it and I made a timestamp so people who come across the update will know when I posted the update. I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 and although I haven't edited in seven years, I'm confident that I know how things work around here.
I think you misinterpreted what I had said. I've had discussions with past members in 2006 and 2007 as to what the appropriate names for station complex articles should be. There are some complexes with stations that bear the same name that made sense to be merged into a single article. There are some complexes with stations that each have different names, but the rationale behind merging the station articles together was that since they share the same fare control and are linked together via a passageway or staircase, they should share an article page. Do you follow what I am saying now? As for creating a table, I made a list above that shows the names that articles are named currently, and next to it, if applicable, shows the name that we would move it to so it would be in accordance with the MTA's CSV document. As for spacing between the names and the dashes and slashes, WP:MOS states not to use spaces between dashes and slashes. Lastly, as for the Franklin Fulton complex, persuade the contributors above as to why you disagree. I disagree as well, but based on the replies that they gave me, I had no further objections, but could be persuaded otherwise. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Vcohen is right. Project guidelines should not be signed, nor should a particular editor claim credit on it. For that matter the guideline should just be updated in the existing text, not as a subsection. It needs a total rewrite, sorry. oknazevad (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a better way it could be written? At the very least I wouldn't have signed off on it, but the way it was written seemed fine to me.
I'm not going to start an edit war to revert what you removed, but if you come up with a better way as to how it should be written, please provide it. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Moves (mostly) completed and double redirects have been all fixed. The ones that epicgenius has deemed trivial I'll leave alone for now until a clear consensus has been established to move the others. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing these moves. I think that Franklin Avenue–Fulton Street (New York City Subway) should be moved as the complex name is Franklin Avenue and does not include Fulton Street. We should be consistent. In addition, the flip moves, such as for the New Utrecht Avenue/62nd Street (New York City Subway) and Bleecker Street/Broadway–Lafayette Street (New York City Subway) articles, should be done as they are official names. It won't cause any harm, and the title would not be made up. I think that these changes should be done.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Anytime! Coming across this list helped a great deal; we have a resource to go by, and if anything, we can cite them in the lead sentence of the article, because in the beginning it was a problem coming up with a name for these complexes back in 2006. Some users found triple-barreled names (with three names broken off by a dash or slash or both, such as 42nd Street–Bryant Park/Fifth Avenue) long and ugly, but if that's the name the MTA uses for its complex, then we might as well do the same.
I'll leave alone Franklin Avenue–Fulton Street for now, but the others I'll make the changes as epicgenius didn't really dispute those names, just that one alone. We can discuss entirely what to do with that one...thoroughly discuss. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@LRG5784: The official list of all subway stations mentions Myrtle–Wyckoff Avenues (New York City Subway) as the correct name, with the dash: Myrtle - Wyckoff Avs. epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. I never moved that page, and I do not intend to move it breaking away from this list. The main issue that myself and others are having is the name for Franklin Avenue–Fulton Street. I personally am indifferent with that name, and I understand your rationale as to why it is named so, so that name I left alone so as to not spark an edit war. The other names I have not yet "flipped" around, even though I said I would (I simply have not gotten around to do so yet). But in all fairness, I just want to make sure that we're on the same page with the "flipping" of the names to match what's on the station complex list. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing anything?

What does it mean "inwood" is not part of this station's name? Vcohen (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WTH? I can't seem to revert the change, or else I would.
I'd be damned if we have to put in a request for an admin to move the page back. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I just put in a request to have the change undone at WP:RM, and have notified the person responsible for the move not to make a unilateral decision like that again. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As a page mover I've re-round robined the pages. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd have done the same thing. Thanks for your prompt action, Train2104. epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You two are the bomb! —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for non-free files

I just found File:A downtown bound A train at 14th Street.jpg, used in the lede of A (New York City Subway service), sourced from NYCTF, and having been up on Wikipedia since November. This is an egregious violation of non-free content rules. Please be on the lookout for other non-free files in NYCT articles...thanks! – Train2104 (t • c) Bumping thread for 1 days. epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Rename suggestion

I found one image in the MTA's gallery that has a really bad name, and I'm thinking of renaming it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for something like "MTA B&T Personell with salt-filled wheelbarrow," but I'm open for other suggestions.

"MTA Bridges & Tunnels employee spreading salt after a snowstorm". Straight forward description, without being too wordy. oknazevad (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then. It goes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:LI bus link

I'll start of with this. I really am not to familiar with these types of templates on Wikipedia. It seems that none of these links are sending users directly to the location of the route in the list of routes for, and I believe I understand why, kind-of. As some of you probably know, before the NICE takeover, the MTA ran Nassau's buses under "Long Island Bus." They used capital "N"s in their signage. When NICE took over, they began to use lowercase "n"s to display their roots. We decided to reflect that change on the list. Here's what happens when I click on, say, n22 {{LI bus link|n22}}, the webpage url briefly goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N22_(Long_Island_bus), and then changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_routes_in_Nassau_County,_New_York#N22. If you change the uppercase "N" in the first url, it doesn't change anything, but changing the "N" in the second url to lowercase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_routes_in_Nassau_County,_New_York#n22, it works as it should in bringing the user to the n22 section in the table. Does annyone know if it is possible to just fix the template so the letter remains lowercase? Again, the template is Template:LI bus link. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Technical restrictions with the first letter being capitalized comes into play. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
These restrictions can be circumvented by linking to the list of routes directly, lowercasing all inputs using the {{lc:string}} function. For example: {{lc:N22}} produces "n22". epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this a problem with the section link in N22 (Long Island bus)? Either the redirects should be changed or {{anchor}} could be placed on the list page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed all the redirects in about 5 minutes, so my previous argument is moot. epicgenius (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks for fixing the links. However, there is still one issue; any route with a suffix does not go to the position in the list. So, while n6 is fine, n6X doesn't work. Same goes for anything else of similar nature. You think you can fix that? Thanks again. RES2773 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done. It was only a few anchors as far as I could tell, but feel free to let me know if I missed any. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Is anybody planning links for HART or Long Beach and Glen Cove bus routes? Maybe even Patchogue? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Metro-North station info displays

Simple question about the Information displays at various Metro-North stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Are these signs LCD displays?
    Are these signs LCD displays?
  • Or are they another format?
    Or are they another format?
Impossible to say without knowing what model of monitor is used inside the cases. They're just flatscreen TVs displaying the output of a networked PC, so they can be really any monitor that they can get cheap, and may not even be the same from station to station. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:New York City Subway navbox

Cards84664 has inserted the bullets that link to the individual subway service articles into the navbox. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it, as I kinda do like it, and it's not that distracting as it's in a navbox and not the article body itself. Rather than someone reverting his good-faith and bold edit I was wondering what you guys think of the change and if we should keep it. For what it's worth, we already use bullets in the infobox so I don't really see what's wrong with using the bullets in the navbox either. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

LRG5784 One thing I was wondering about, should the express bullets for the "6" express train and "7" express train be listed? Cards84664 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why not, since they too are used in the infobox. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there an WP:ACCESS issue with the bullets, which is why we haven't used them before? I don't think we need the express bullets either way, as the link is the important thing. oknazevad (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still help to list them, since they are regarded as separate services? Cards84664 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the diamond bullets links to a different part of the article, so I say go for it.
@Oknazevad: I heard the same thing, it's a CSS hack but with it being in a navbox and infobox, I'm not sure how much it impacts the article itself. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
But, navbox guidelines call for only one link to a given article, even if a different section if the article, so they really shouldn't be included as they're redundant links. Overall, though, I do prefer the bullets, as it's a better visual representation of the actual system. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Acknowledged. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Epicgenius undid the bullets to the previous version. I understand the accessibility issues, but if that's an issue, why do we use the bullets in the navboxes then? —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
We could use alt text since the bullets use {{rint}} now. I've fixed it, so the bullets can go back. epicgenius (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Great!
As for the latest dispute with the navboxes, I support Epicgenius's version; categorize the current services separate from the defunct services. We could insert the bullets for the defunct services if necessary, but then again I don't want the navbox to be too fancy. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@LRG5784: Actually, that was oknazevad's version. I'm still confused what he means by "the shuttles are supposed to be on the same line" when they are already on the same line of text. epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The current services are categorized separately from the former services by being in a separate group. The wording "current services" is unneeded; in English writing something is presumed current unless stated otherwise. And the shuttles don't inherently appear on the same line (they don't on my screen when the sub-grouping is present), so removing unneeded squeezes is a way to minimize that risk.
Honestly, I think we can ditch the photomontage as well. Navboxes are not supposed to be arbitrarily decorative, not pointlessly illustrated. If a reader want me to know what the Subway looks like, they can go to any of the linked articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we should keep the images. They don't do any harm, and similar montages in other navboxes help illustrate the subject. However, the number of images should be reduced. epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Railfan-cruft

@Epicgenius, Mtattrain, and Olsen24: Going to centralize this discussion here, as my edits on both the R179 and bus fleet articles have been reverted twice already. The exact details of which vehicles are (already|left) in service is very much unencyclopedic in my opinion, and we need to stop taking data from railfan-produced photos, videos, and wikis as they are far from WP:RS. These are by far not the only examples of this in the various articles covered by this project, though perhaps the most egregious.

This reminds me of the summary of the AEM-7's left in service, which was eventually removed. Pinging @Mackensen: was involved in that discussion. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the info really is railfan cruft (and bus-fan cruft too!). Adding references to the delivery dates of the first trains is important. The other details, not so much. Also pinging @Kew Gardens 613: who reverted Train2104 the first time. epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with epicgenius here. First delivery and service dates are useful information, and often good sources can be found. Delivery and service dates of further vehicles, numbers of specific vehicles in service, and trivial technical details do not belong on Wikipedia. I've had similar issues with MBTA Bus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I too concur with Epic, Pi,and others. This isn't a spotters' guide, and the information, even if verifiable, isn't appropriate for here. And I agree that railfans photos aren't reliable sources per our standards. oknazevad (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
In terms of specific vehicles in service, what is okay to be in an article, and what is not. For instance, is it okay to say which cars are assigned to the E for example? Also, why would pictures not be acceptable?
I guess I am just not used to not having some of this information on the pages. Could a section written on the main WP:NYCPT page be written to say what is and what is not acceptable to be put into articles? I think that this is important as a lot of the editors on the project, myself included, are railfans. I agree that the delivery dates of vehicles other than the first vehicles should not be in the articles. Some technical details which I had put in, such as additional advertising space in A cars, should be removed. Thanks for starting this discussion, and I hope that we all reach an understanding.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Train2104 with eliminating information about how many units are left in service for buses that being retired and how many units of new buses have been delivered. It provides useful information to the status of the that model. Saying just Being Delivered or Being Retired is extremely vague and in some cases inaccurate as some bus models have only a small portion of units in service but aren't necessarily being retired at the moment. Stating this information is more helpful than hurtful and the space it takes up is minimal because it is only a few words or numbers. Olsen24 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: Your proposed section is adequately covered in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGUIDE. In short, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. ... Writing about "oak trees in North Carolina" or "blue trucks", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article. epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We should still have a mention of those pages. If I just joined wikipedia today, still being a railfan, I would not know about those two pages and therefore, I might conceivably start mentioning little details and other railfan cruft. I think that those should be mentioned.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
But in that logic you wouldn't know about this WikiProject either. Perhaps an edit notice? – Train2104 (t • c) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I was guessing we could use something like Template:WikiProject Biography, which automatically transcludes the edit notice Template:BLP if a certain parameter is inputted. epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, BLP's are done using sitewide JS in MediaWiki:Common.js, so that's not an option. I think the number of pages affected is small enough that we could create a standard template, then transclude them onto the editnotices of a bunch of pages, like {{Romeo notice}}. Note - you'll need the assistance of myself, another template editor, or an admin to do the last step. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I've created a draft at User:Train2104/Railfan editnotice. Feel free to edit it. Once we do this, the next step would be to determine a set of pages to apply it to. Note - please try to avoid making this NYCPT specific. I want this to be usable at other transit and even freight railroad pages too. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Thanks for creating the template, and for explaining the MediaWiki code for the BLP notice. I've made a few changes (removing a redundant "and" in This article is meant for a general audience, and not just people interested in the subject., and adding "blogs" in fansites, forums, blogs, and user-submitted photos or videos. Otherwise, it looks good so far. I think it may be more specific to heavy-rail and national/regional rail. Do we want to expand this to light rail and monorails (for instance), too? epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally this should be generic enough to apply to anything rail/transit-fan related, from heavy rail to light rail to buses. Perhaps the word "railfans" should be parameterizable. I've notified WT:TWP. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this; I'd been thinking along these lines for a while but hadn't written anything down. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mackensen, Epicgenius, and Kew Gardens 613: I've deployed it on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. That article is perhaps the worst offender in the NYC area when it comes to this kind of stuff. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. The fact that it's a generic {{railfan editnotice}} should help matters, since the code doesn't have to be copied for every single article. epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: It doesn't seem to be doing its purpose, the article is still attracting crufty edits, including the TTC bus purchase rumors now. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Short of an abuse filter or outright page protection, nothing can technically prevent these cruft edits, just like nothing is stopping a not-blocked user from vandalizing these pages, either. However, the edit notice serves as a more visible warning for newer users who may not know the policies. epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As much as I agree with leaving out cruft like this, the edit notice is probably a no-go, as it raises WP:OWN issues (projects do not own articles). The BLP notice is different because that's notifying about a site-wide policy, one with potential legal ramifications, as opposed to a consensus between half a dozen editors. We'll have to find a different method, I think. oknazevad (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a WP:OWN issue so long as we are not making up rules that aren't based on sitewide policies and guidelines. Edit notices are used are for other things, like telling users that live scores don't belong in soccer articles. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@@Epicgenius: I'd be breaching 3RR if I touch it again, so I'll let it be for now, but there's a lot to remove. I'm fully aware that nothing would prevent them, but I would've expected the warning to deter the IP's. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I wish I could do something about it other than actually removing the cruft, but the only real solution is to implement pending changes level 2, which is not approved for use here. The users in question can also get around extended confirmed or semi-protection, so that won't work either. Full protection will make it un-editable by anyone, even well-meaning users. After all, cruft can't be caught by edit filter. epicgenius (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what cruft other than information about retirement and delivery are you referring to? Olsen24 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Olsen24: Things like 6401, 6468 & 6485 were retrofitted with A123 lithium-ion batteries OR 570-643 were to be built by Orion; the order was transferred to New Flyer Industries due to the folding of Orion. These aren't important and are more like trivia, fun facts. epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Centering titles

Is it OK if I center infobox title in Grand Central Terminal and similar articles? See also Template talk:Infobox station#Center title. --Obsuser (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The titles of the Metro-North station articles are meant to reflect the signs at the stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: Per WP:MULTI, please discuss at Template talk:Infobox station#Center title, not here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Station succession

Is there a particular reason the BMT Jamaica and Myrtle lines use the commuter rail style s-line succession templates instead of the standard NYCS ones, from Canal to Metropolitan and Broadway Junction? – Train2104 (t • c) 19:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this. If I recall, it had to do with the convoluted route of the M train. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104 and DanTD: Yes, that was about it. The M's route after 2010 made it so that Metropolitan Avenue was the southern terminal on weekdays, but the northern terminal on weekends and late nights. So the standard "next north" and "next south" parameters would differ based on what time of day you were talking about. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
So why does this affect Canal, Bowery, Kosciusko, Gates, Halsey, Chauncey, and Broadway Junction? – Train2104 (t • c) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they wanted to keep that section of the line consistent with the segment west of Myrtle Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line). Does anybody have a link to this discussion? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Eastern Division railroad directions. epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking requests for NYC photos this weekend

I'll be in NYC for much of this weekend with few commitments. I've assembled a list of photo targets from the lists of photo requests on here; does anyone have any particularly high-priority photos they need, or requests that aren't on the lists? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

After this edit I assume that all my requests have been taken into account. Thank you in advance. Vcohen (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a few of my own in all five boroughs. No, I'm not the one who added the Staten Island Railway stations, but I had my heart set on capturing those before my previous attempts were curtailed by Winter Storm Stella. Honestly though, I have a tough time deciding what on that list to recommend first. Maybe the sites of the former BMT Culver Line stations like Fort Hamilton Parkway (BMT Culver Line) and 13th Avenue (BMT Culver Line). You many not find any remnants of the old Culver El there, but you will find the intersections where those stations used to be. Or maybe a few current and former LIRR stations in the city. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Brooklyn Navy Yard buses

I didn't mention this, but on my March 2017 trip to the NYC Metro area, I discovered a Brooklyn Navy Yard shuttle bus running down York Street in Dumbo. I had to check to be sure if it wasn't another MTA bus wrapped in an ad for the yard.

  • Neither the bus nor this '70 Chevy Impala were my intended targets there...
    Neither the bus nor this '70 Chevy Impala were my intended targets there...
  • .. but the bus was kind of hard to overlook.
    .. but the bus was kind of hard to overlook.

Maybe it should be added to the list of buses in Brooklyn? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should include it. We don't include the Ikea shuttles, for instance. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, we do have Hudson Rail Link for the Bronx list, and RIOC, New York Waterway and Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District buses for the Manhattan list. I didn't think the Ikea shuttles were in the same league as the Brooklyn Navy Yard shuttles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The IKEA shuttle is for a private corporation that ultimately has little to do with transport. I don't think the same can be said for the Hudson Rail Link, RIOC, NY Waterway, or Lower Manhattan BID buses. Let's figure out what category the Navy Yard buses fall in. epicgenius (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought so... about the Ikea shuttle, that is. Here's a link, and another, and a third. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
So it is a private corporation. Maybe we can include the Brooklyn Navy Yard bus. After all, we also talk about the B110 bus, which is a privately owned Jewish bus. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Queens/Steinway Bus Route chart

As part of my effort to reformat the bus routes of the former private bus companies in NYC, I made a new list for Queens Surface Corporation and Steinway Transit with this edit, which I reverted. The previous version still has some missing info, some duplicate info, and some broken links. Most notably, I'm still seeking info on a former Jones Beach Express route I found out about on the bus pages for NYCSubway.org. Any info on this would be useful. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

NYCSubway.org links for abandoned stations

I just noticed a series of mass reverts by admin Ronhjones of NYCsubway.org links added to various abandoned station articles by 68.194.88.62 who was then blocked for spamming. However, if we're linking to the (dead, unofficial, and not too good under WP:ELNO) Station Reporter, I don't see why we should be having NYCsubway.org links. Before readding them en masse, I'd like to seek some sort of consensus... – Train2104 (t • c) 15:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If anything, we should narrow them down to the specific stations, as long as there are links to those stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The original report of user was by user:DatBot - here - DatBot had obviously given many on-line warnings, which user had ignored. It was obvious that the user was adding the same EL over and over again. Hence blocked and reverted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That IP was actually adding a useful EL that contains information above and beyond what Wikipedia offers. It was not spamming, and should not have been blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Another reflink found

I just stumbled upon a link to the 1968-1973 MTA Capital Plan in the Railroad.net forum. Has anybody else seen this? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen that.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

138 St-Grand Concourse ridership

For some reason there is no listing for 138th Street–Grand Concourse (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) on the annual ridership page. There is average weekend and weekday ridership though. There were 261 weekdays and 105 weekends in 2016, which means there were approximately 1249767 (1,249,767) rides from that station in 2016. This represents an 18.3% (18.3%) change from 2015 if my calculations are correct. I have a feeling this is original research though. epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware. I emailed customer response and they haven't responded back. They must have accidentally deleted the row.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Merging the R7 and R7A articles

This section is about the following pages: R7 (New York City Subway car) and R7A (New York City Subway car).

It appears that the two fleets are virtually identical to each other. If you take a look at the two, they have the same power, traction system, power output, braking systems and were even built by the same companies: Pullman Standard and American Car and Foundry. Maybe there were a few differences, but they are otherwise identical to each other. In addition to that, both also entered service in the same year, and were retired in the same year. As it was done to the R40 and R40A articles, in addition to the R160A and R160B articles, I therefore find it appropriate to merge the R7 and R7A articles. Does anyone agree?

And before you comment, read the articles first. Specifically, read the specifications chart.

--Davidng913 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've now merged the articles. The specifications are almost exactly the same. Where they differ, I've added some notes. epicgenius (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New Station Service Icon

I created a new icon for weekends only that we can use in the articles for station listings as well as the templates that transclude to the many articles within the WikiProject scope: Image:NYCS-SSI-weekendsonly.svg

It is based off of an old {{NYCS|C}} train Guide-A-Ride from the 1990s, seen here and here. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have also slightly modified the weekdays only icon, replacing the inner circle with a white diamond circle. It now closely resembles the icon used in the Guide-A-Ride for the C train from the 1990s in the links above, as well as the subway line map for the V train prior to its discontinuation, seen here. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone should re-upload the circle version of the weekdays service icon, but under another name. This circular weekdays icon is used in the MTA website. Even if we don't use it to represent weekday service, it can still represent another service pattern. 65.88.88.72 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It should be restored for use as the weekday only icon, as it is what the MTA currently uses. We shouldn't use 20 year old icon patterns, that would only serve to confuse current readers. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what you guys are trying to say. I uploaded a new icon to denote stops served on weekends, and modified the weekday icon because the V train's station listing on the MTA's website used it. If you look at the station listings on the individual line maps now, the only ones that they have now are the ones that say all times, rush hours (both directions), rush hours in the peak direction, late nights, or the one that says part time and has just a hollow white circle with a black outline, which to the MTA means everything else that doesn't fall under those icons. Back in 2006, we created these icons because at the time they were also on the MTA's website. That's why they still exist today, and are far less ambiguous compared to anything else I've seen. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I mean we should save the old version of the weekdays icon and then upload it again under a new image name. Currently, the old icon is not in use anywhere on Wikimedia projects. 65.88.88.72 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
What else could it be used for? The fact that they both look so similar is a drawback as to why it should not be used. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal, and believe we should use this official MTA symbols as shown on the route guides.
Time Official Symbol Wikipedia symbol
All times Stops all times Stops all times
Part Time Stops weekdays during the day Stops all times except late nightsStops late nights and weekendsStops weekends during the dayStops weekdays during the dayStops weekday evenings onlyStops all times except rush hours in the peak direction
Late nights Stops late nights only Stops late nights only
Rush hour Stops rush hours only Stops rush hours only
One way rush Stops rush hours in the peak direction only Stops rush hours in the peak direction only
Closed not shown Station closed

Problem is the part time symbol under your proposal is too ambiguous. A user would have to hover over each and every icon over their computer to figure out what the icon is being used for, versus the icons that are present now, which used to exist on the MTA's pages at one point, are more straight forward and to the point that it doesn't take long for a reader to figure out what the icons mean. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are links that shows precedent for why we created the icons in the first place back in 2006:

  • Stops all times except late nights: here
  • Stops late nights and weekends: here
  • Stops weekends during the day: I already posted an example above.
  • Stops weekdays during the day: Again, I already posted an example above.
  • Stops weekday evenings only: (no official icon, so no precedent)
  • Stops all times except rush hours in the peak direction: here and here

Under your "proposal", replacing all these icons with one general "part time" icon would cause ambiguity across the project scope. For one line that part time symbol would mean that trains stop there weekdays, for another line it would mean that the trains stops there outside rush hours in the peak direction, and for another line it would mean that the trains don't stop there at night. Do you really want that much confusion across the board? I certainly wouldn't. And adding footnotes won't do much to help out either. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@LRG5784: Reading closely, I don't think that's what the IP user is saying. I certainly disagree with replacing all the current part-time variants with the part-time icon. However, I also think there should be a new file name and new use for the old weekdays-only icon. Like (if it portrays a weekdays and late nights pattern), or File:NYCS-SSI-evenings.svg (if it portrays an evenings pattern). epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the all-except-rush and rush-peak icons look very similar, except one is a diamond and the other one is a circle (same with the new and old weekdays icons). I don't think that's a reason to not use the old weekdays icon. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius:I get where you're coming from. I would be open to using the old weekdays icon to indicate weekdays only (including late nights). So basically the new weekday icon could mean 6:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Monday - Friday, and the old one could be used for weekdays 6:30 a.m. Monday - 12:00 midnight Saturday? —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@LRG5784: Yeah, sure, that could work. So the new one is weekdays except nights and the old one is weekdays plus nights? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Yes, precisely. (I just realized my mistake from above, I fixed that.) —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The free transfer between the E and the R at World Trade Center and Cortlandt Street will be built after all.

People on NYC Transit Forums, myself included, have been discussing work going on in the WTC area that seemed like that the transfer between the E and the R would be built after all. It turns out that there is actual proof that this will take place. [2]

We will have to merge the Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line) and Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place (New York City Subway) articles. It is unclear when the work will be done.

We should get ready for the changes.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Crap, we're going to have a really long and unwidely name for this complex unless MTA comes up with something creative. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This has always been one of the things that bothered me about merging a lot of these station articles. That and the fact that some of the stations that are merged are a little further away than one might expect, i.e.; 42nd Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) being further away from the rest of Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
First, looks like there will be 424 stations. Second, I think DanTD is right. The title of the Times Square station is only 3 terms long and that's pushing it. We're probably going to have some 4-term nonsense like Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place/Cortlandt Street (New York City Subway) after the dust is cleared. Let's wait for the official MTA name to come out, but I think in the meantime we can treat the two parts as two separate stations, like 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line), Sixth Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line), and 14th Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) were before I merged them. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should wait on this. I hope that they shorten the name.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, at least two of the stations at 14th Street/Sixth Avenue (New York City Subway) have the same name (14th Street). This is just a wild suggestion, but why don't we shoot them an e-mail about the new name? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. Worst case scenario is they don't have one at the moment lol. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, the articles should be merged after the connection is built. We don't merge articles with planned connections, such as Junius Street and Livonia Avenue. Vcohen (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Even if there was a connection, the articles might still not be merged because doing so might be unwieldy, or for some other reason. Like Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway) was not merged with 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) until a few years ago even though both articles had existed for over a decade. Or the three 14th Street/Sixth Avenue articles. epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, not to merge at all is better than nothing, but my motto is consistency. After the articles that you mentioned were merged, each station complex has one and only one article. Vcohen (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I still haven't e-mailed the MTA yet, but my best guess for a name would be something like "Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park-Cortland (New York City Subway)." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Suffolk County Transit Fleet

The 2017 Xcelsiors SCT has received has not been reflected on the page:Suffolk County Transit#Fleet. I added the little information I know about them, but it would be greatly appreciated if someone could expand upon it. Especially if anyone has a photo they could upload. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Clark St and Bushwick Cut

I've started to go through a few of the templates, but I haven't really touched any of the NYCS xxx templates since the 2010 service cuts, so I'm really rusty on them. Anyway, starting June 25th there will be two major service changes that we will need to reflect:

  • Bushwick Cut
    • Weekday M will operate Continental-Broadway Junction, with some rush hour trips to/from 2 Av.
    • Weekend M will operate Essex-Broadway Junction.
    • Night M will not operate.
    • J/Z will make local stops Marcy-Broadway Junction.
    • Starting in August, there will be a 24/7 M shuttle Myrtle/Wyckoff-Metropolitan.
  • Clark Street (Weekends only)
    • 4 extends to New Lots, local in Brooklyn all weekend.
    • 5 operates from 241, extends to Flatbush Av, local in Brooklyn all weekend.
    • 2 operates from Dyre, runs local south of 34 St, terminates at South Ferry.
    • 3 terminates at 14 St.

For Bushwick Cut I've split Myrtle into north and south, so it's easy to put the shuttle in, and then the stations Marcy through Broadway Junction can just use {{NYCS Jamaica west}} since they'll all have the same service pattern. I'm not sure where to begin for Clark St, since there's so many different things involved and it's weekends only. Let's have a discussion and plot this whole thing out before we jump into it... – Train2104 (t • c) 01:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: For Clark Street, we would need {{NYCS Dyre}}, {{NYCS White Plains Wakefield}}, {{NYCS White Plains north}} to be split into weekday and weekend variants. We also need a {{NYCS Broadway-Seventh center}} (42nd-96th St) and {{NYCS Broadway-Seventh center south}} (14th-42nd St) with local, express, day, and night variants. I think we need a table to explain this: epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c The "NYCS Broadway-Seventh center south ..." templates are the same as the existing "NYCS Broadway-Seventh south ..." templates. Just move them. Alternatively, these templates can keep their current names and the three new templates covering 14th to Chambers Streets can be named something else.
  2. ^ a b c These will be different from the existing templates of the same names.

Arbitrary break

Bumping thread for 60 days. epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


For the Lex Av, Jerome, and White Plains templates, I'm not even going to list them here, since they consist of exactly one change: making all the "all times except late nights" designations for the 5 into "all times" (or "all except late nights and rush hours, peak direction" into "all except rush hours, peak direction").

I'm assuming the Myrtle Avenue templates are all "no regular service".

The {{{time|}}} parameters have to be added manually, and so will the "exclude" function and {{NYCS br}}. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: Is the J/Z skip stop suspended between Broadway Junction and Myrtle Av during the M train reconstruction? epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Please don't make production changes to the IRT templates until I figure out the little nuances of the service plan. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say "never mind", but OK. I figured them out already, except the M during late night, which I'm still confused about. epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This says that the 5 will be going to replace the 2 on weekends. Also, this service plan would operate overnight from Sunday night until 5 a.m. on Monday mornings. So the 5 would serve Brooklyn at all times. This has a bold M indicating "all times, maybe except for late nights", but the MTA famously does not include late night service in its regular map. I'm guessing that the Broadway Junction route does not run during late nights since the current M shuttle only goes between Myrtle and Metropolitan Av during late night (which would be part of the full-time shuttle anyway). epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the Myrtle-Metropolitan shuttle, there is no M service at night. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I wasn't sure before, but now I know. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

One thing confuses the living hell out of me. I don't think the 5 train will be going to Brooklyn during late nights during the week, only during the weekend. So if I'm not mistaken, I'm guessing that the correct pattern for the 5 in Brooklyn will be weekdays during the daytime, and then 11:45 p.m. Fri. - 5 a.m. Mon., unless I'm missing something. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until after new maps have been printed to make these changes? While the J/M/Z changes definitely will appear on maps, schedules, the website, etc. since it will be 24/7 for a year, we don't know about the Clark Street Tunnel rehab. The Jorelemon Street Tunnel has been shut down practically every weekend for the past year for Sandy work, but the maps and schedules don't show the 3/4/5 changes resulting from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.76.2 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Current procedure was to always make changes to the articles and templates the night before the changes go into effect. But protocol also is to make sure we have an idea of the changes as well as to have them ready so we won't be scrambling at the last minute to figure out what goes where. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104 and LRG5784: Pinging past commenters. Clark St changes are happening starting tomorrow. There are a lot of templates to modify so I guess this is an invitation to help. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And here is a reference for the updated change. epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
For now it's just a GO. I'm going to wait for the pick to start 6/25 and the appropriate timetable PDFs to be issued. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I know it's a GO, but it seems like this service pattern will also be kept for the more longer-lasting service change. The Bronx swap isn't officially happening for another two weeks since it's a GO, but the Brooklyn swap seems to be unofficially starting. epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help, but shouldn't we wait until tomorrow?
@Kew Gardens 613: Sure. As it's a GO that will continue into a more permanent service change, I was saying that we should change the Manhattan service patterns tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Are there any articles that still need changing to use the right template, or is plugging the new service patterns into the templates listed all we need to do?
@Kew Gardens 613: No, I think we just change the template and edit the related station/route/line articles accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't me. I didn't ask that question.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought since you asked the first question with an unsigned comment, that you also asked the second. epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: From my understanding, even though the G.O.'s start later on tonight, maybe it would be best to wait for the "permanent" service change taking effect on 6/25. I won't object if we do start updating templates tonight though, but we're still not 100% sure as to how else service will be affected. The only hint I have was from reading a PDF that said even though there will be some weekday service changes due to the tunnel closure, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball not can we just assume what is going to happen until the maps and timetables are updated. But I'm just as curious and eager as everyone else to see what the final service pattern is. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Quote from the Board Meeting PDF that implements that this service change will also affect Weekday service: "As such, this service plan technically includes changes in weekday schedules and routes; from the perspective of the vast majority of riders, however, this is a “weekend only” service plan." So maybe these changes will also occur during the week during the late evening and overnight hours. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@LRG5784: This probably does affect weekday service but maybe only in train frequencies. I see the point that maybe we could wait for the new schedules and picks. The only reason I was asking to change the templates now is because the public wouldn't know the difference between a GO and a more permanent service change from looking at the MTA webpage. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No changes to weekday service. The comment is referring to the fact that the outages go until 5AM Mondays, which impacts the weekday timetable since schedules are written midnight to midnight. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: General protocol calls for us to make edits to the articles and templates the weekend the picks occur, specifically Friday/Saturday night. I don't want us to jump the gun per se, however I would strongly encourage something in the paragraph of the articles that mention that although the service changes were made to coincide with the pick, they just so happened to begin a few weeks prior to it. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we could mention that much about the GO without changing anything definitively yet. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Thank you for clarifying, by the way. It seems dumb that the MTA would cut the 5 train back to Bowling Green at 8:00 p.m. on a Friday night only to "re-extend" it a few hours later, but who am I to question them?
@Epicgenius: Exactly. I still feel as if something may be done to the weekday service patterns anyway, but it's all moot until the maps and timetables get updated. But trust me, I'm just as eager as the next guy. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: More info/some fixes: no weeknight 2 @ South Ferry, the weekend daytime 2 is local south of 34th, 5 still turns at Bowling Green weekday evenings. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Thanks for further clarification. I think there would need to be a new Icon for evenings only; I'm working on that. epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I was thinking of the something similar, creating a symbol for weekends only, however. I was thinking of symbol like the nights and weekends symbol, but instead of both the horizontal and vertical line cutting across the circle, maybe have the vertical line cut across only. File name could be "NYCS-SSI-weekendsonly.svg". —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I was thinking of how well worded the paragraphs for the 2, 3, 4 and 5 articles could be come this weekend. Here's what I've came up with:

"Weekday daytime 2 service operates between Wakefield - 241st Street in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue - Brooklyn College in Midwood, Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and Brooklyn and express stops in Manhattan; late night service operates fully local. Limited rush hour service terminates at New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn instead of Flatbush Avenue. Weekend service (from 11:45 p.m. Friday evening to 5 a.m. Monday morning) operates between Eastchester - Dyre Avenue in the Bronx and South Ferry in Manhattan, making local stops in the Bronx and express stops in Manhattan (between 96th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street); late night service operates fully local."

"Weekday daytime 3 service operates between Harlem - 148th Street in Manhattan and New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn, making express stops in Manhattan and local stops in Brooklyn. Weekend daytime service operates between 148th Street and 14th Street in Manhattan, making express stops. Daily late night service operates between 148th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street in Manhattan, making express stops."

"Daily daytime 4 service operates between Woodlawn in the Bronx and Crown Heights - Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and express stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn; the 4 skips 138th Street in the Bronx during rush hours in the peak direction. Limited rush hour service is extended from Utica Avenue to New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn. Weekend and daily late night service operates between Woodlawn and New Lots Avenue fully local."

"Weekday daytime 5 service operates between Eastchester - Dyre Avenue in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue - Brooklyn College in Midwood, Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx (except during rush hours in the peak direction, when trains operate express between East 180th Street and Third Avenue - 149th Street) and express stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Limited rush hour service terminates at either Wakefield - 241st Street or Nereid Avenue in the Bronx instead of Dyre Avenue, and at Crown Heights - Utica Avenue or New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn instead of Flatbush Avenue. Weekday late night service (from 11:45 p.m. to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday) operates as a shuttle between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street in the Bronx. Weekend service (from 11:45 p.m. Friday evening to 5 a.m. Monday morning) operates between Wakefield - 241st Street in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and Brooklyn and express stops in Manhattan. The 5 replaces the 2 in the Bronx and Brooklyn due to weekend construction in the Clark Street Tunnel continuing on until the Spring of 2018."

The paragraph for the 5 is more verbose than usual but that is because it has different service patterns more than the other lines affected by this change. But I feel that it's as detailed as possible for readers to understand. I would still appreciate others' input however. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, if anyone has the Bus NYC app with the stop data updated, you're in for some good shit: the Saturday and Sunday tables shows the 2 operating via Lexington Avenue and the 5 via Seventh.
This is going to be one interesting service change. I'm trying to figure out how we will update the station listing table for the 5. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a Subway Time mistake. It has been like that for years.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this text. We should use the following instead:

"Weekday 2 service operates between Wakefield - 241st Street in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue - Brooklyn College in Midwood, Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and Brooklyn and express stops in Manhattan except late nights when service operates fully local. Limited rush hour service terminates at New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn instead of Flatbush Avenue. Weekend service (from 11:45 p.m. Friday evening to 5 a.m. Monday morning) operates between Eastchester - Dyre Avenue in the Bronx and South Ferry in Manhattan, making local stops in the Bronx and Manhattan south of Times Square - 42 St, and express stops in Manhattan (between 96th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street); late night service operates fully local."

"Weekday daytime 3 service operates between Harlem - 148th Street in Manhattan and New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn, making express stops in Manhattan and local stops in Brooklyn. Weekend service (from 11:45 p.m. Friday evening to 5 a.m. Monday morning) operates between 148th Street and 14th Street in Manhattan, making express stops. Late night service on weeknights operates between 148th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street in Manhattan, making express stops."

"Daily daytime 4 service operates between Woodlawn in the Bronx and Crown Heights - Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and express stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn; the 4 skips 138th Street in the Bronx during rush hours in the peak direction. Limited rush hour service is extended from Utica Avenue to New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn. Weekend and late night service operates between Woodlawn and New Lots Avenue local in Brooklyn and express in Manhattan; late night service is fully local.

"Weekday daytime 5 service operates between Eastchester - Dyre Avenue in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue - Brooklyn College in Midwood, Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx (except during rush hours in the peak direction, when trains operate express between East 180th Street and Third Avenue - 149th Street) and express stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Alternating rush hour service terminates at Nereid Avenue in the Bronx instead of Dyre Avenue with one northbound morning train terminating at Wakefield-241 St, and limited service runs to Crown Heights - Utica Avenue or New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn instead of Flatbush Avenue. Weekday evenings, 5 trains short turn at Bowling Green. Weekday late night service (from 11:45 p.m. to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday) operates as a shuttle between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street in the Bronx. Weekend service (from 11:45 p.m. Friday evening to 5 a.m. Monday morning) operates between Wakefield - 241st Street in the Bronx and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, making local stops in the Bronx and Brooklyn and express stops in Manhattan. The 5 replaces the 2 in the Bronx and Brooklyn due to weekend construction in the Clark Street Tunnel continuing on until the Spring of 2018." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see what the difference is between what I wrote versus what you wrote. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There are subtle differences. The 2 train is largely the same, since lower Manhattan below Times Sq can be assumed to be local. The 3 train terminates at 14 St on weekends during late nights. The 4 train is express in Manhattan on weekends, not late nights. The 5 alternates in the peak direction between Dyre Avenue and Neried Avenue in the peak direction during rush hour, and weekday evenings, 5 trains end at Bowling Green.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the 3 terminates at Times Square on late nights regardless of the day of week. The 3 goes to 14 ST on weekends, otherwise this info is correct. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No, the weekend night 3 goes to 14. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So I guess the weekend night 3 is actually expanded service and the weekday night 3 is unchanged. OK, I'm going to have to change the service tables. epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for the schedules to be released... Nothing on the MTA website as of yet and these new changes to the lines begins this friggin' weekend.
I say let's wait until this evening at the very least before we start updating the articles and their templates. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Schedules have been released for all trains except the 6, 7, D, L, N, R, and W trains. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

I am going to disagree with the timetables as proposed and suggest the following:

This is the proposed changes.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not for nothing man but you really need to be more convincing rather than just shut the conversation down, disagreeing with other's proposals, and then just copy-pasting someone else's comments and not even pointing out differences between everyone else's suggestions versus yours. You did that with my proposal above, and you did it again with epicgenius. I don't know about him, but I don't appreciate that kind of copying, nor is it good etiquette, either. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the new schedule for the 4 train is out. See here.
Patiently waiting for the 2, 3 and 5 schedules to come out. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, the new schedules are out. Pinging epicgenius and Train2104, just wanted to update you guys and let you know that I have updated the lead paragraphs for the {{NYCS|2}}, {{NYCS|3}}, {{NYCS|4}} and {{NYCS|5}} train articles. Now, I guess is the time to update the many templates as well as fix the station listing tables for these articles as well. The 4 is the easiest, all we have to do is change the nights only icons in Brooklyn to nights and weekends. But it's the others that I'm not sure how to update yet. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Clark: Bronx  Done Brooklyn  Done Manhattan  Done // Myrtle will wait until Jul 1 – Train2104 (t • c) 01:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've taken some liberty with the local day templates, as there are now lines running weekend days that need to be included. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Nicely done man! —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Doing Station complexes. Theoallen1 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Station listing tables for the {{NYCS|2}} and {{NYCS|4}} are  Done. The {{NYCS|3}} and {{NYCS|5}} will be up next (once I get some sleep!). —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2 train should show for 5 trains the Rush peak symbol for transfered, as before the service change. The 5 train does not transfer to the 2 train on the White Plains Road Line above East 180 Street on weekends.Theoallen1 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Good call. Maybe we should create a new template (NYCS White Plains north weekend) and move the existing one to (NYCS White Plains north weekday)? —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The templates on the IRT page for the 5 from East 180 Street to the loops south of Bowling Green, as well as the 3 from Times Square to 14th Streets, are wrong.Theoallen1 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Train2104 and epicgenius: I think we may have to create new templates for every single line the 2, 3, 4, and 5 operate on. We may have to create weekday daytime, weekday late night, weekend daytime and weekend late night templates, probably for both local and express patterns. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Tables for the {{NYCS|3}} and {{NYCS|5}} are now all updated! We still have some issues such as the template discrepancy I addressed above, however. But we now have one less thing to worry about. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing: the legends on each station page still need to be updated. I'll do it now. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The J and Z changes are in effect already, with the M waiting for Friday night. I've updated the templates as best as I could without creating unnecessary complexity just for these couple days...I'd suggest everything else hold off until Friday. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Why are you leaving the M off the headers of the Jamaica Line stations to which it is rerouted? – Train2104 (t • c) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: I wrongly thought the M was not on the map when it is. Oops... epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The {{NYCS|2}} and {{NYCS|4}} tables are complete. Station platform guidelines have not been updated at all IRT platforms except:

Broadway 7th Avenue Line Stations from 86th Street to Cortlandt St except 59th Street and 14th Street as well as Wall Street
Dyre Avenue Line stations between Baychester and Morris Park
Eastern Parkway Line stations from Borough Hall to Franklin Avenue except Hoyt Street and Atlantic Av
138th and 149th Streets on the Jerome Avenue Line
Any Lenox Avenue Line Station
Lexington Avenue Line express stations and stations south of Brooklyn Bridge
Norstrad Av Line at Presidents Street  Done
White Plains Road Line between E-180 Street and 149th Street Grand Concourse.Theoallen1 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On the M train, the 14th Street Done, 34th Street Done, Lexington Avenue / 53rd Street  Done, Court Square Done, and Jackson Heights /74th Street Done have not been done. Other stations should be reverted until tomorrow night pursuant to protocol.Theoallen1 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
We should also show "5" train weekend only on the 1/2 at South Ferry, N at Court St / Whitehall, and R at Whitehall. Rush peak should be shown on the "4" train New Lots Line for the 2/3/5 lines and the "5" train White Plains Line above 180th St. The "4" train line should be omitted along the 3 between Franklin Ave and Atlantic Av or the R at Canal St. The "w" train should not be shown on the N between Herald Sq and Atlantic Ac except Canal St and 14th St  Done and the "n" train should be shown on the R from Canal St to 34th St.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the protocol, we shouldn't revert articles for one night. We update them a few days in advance since it gives us less work to do on the day of the actual change. That said, the service changes are occurring to day, so no need. Also, most of these articles will only need time updates. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the table for the M to include limited service to Second Avenue. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The service pattern table for the M needs to be updated to show the Limited M's to Second Avenue. I'm not very familiar with editing tables such as this, or else I would have done it on my own.  Done—LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The only "5" train trains that travel along the New Lots Av Line depart during the AM rush and go in the morning to East 180 St and Dyre Av. The 5 page where it goes station by station needs to be updated.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: I fixed the station listing table for it just now. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d These will be different from the existing templates of the same names.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference center-south was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Jay Street–MetroTech (IND Lines)

Ladies and gentlemen, which lines is the Jay Street–MetroTech (IND Lines) station on? The article says it's on IND Fulton Street Line and IND Culver Line, these two articles about the lines list the station as one of their stations, and only the {{NYCS stations navbox by line}} template says it's on IND Eighth Avenue Line and IND Sixth Avenue Line. I think the error is in the template. Vcohen (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the template. epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

NYC Ferry image request

Does anyone have an image of a NYC Ferry stop, or is anyone willing to take an image of such? It would be much appreciated since I am nominating this article for GA right now. epicgenius (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have photos of all of them except 34th Street, Bay Ridge, and Governor's Island, but most were taken from the boat. Uploading now. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Thanks; I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done, see c:Category:NYC Ferry. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't take any of the pictures, but I not only found Governor's Island ferry ports, I created a whole category for them a while back. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the images, DanTD. However, these all look like the stops for the ferry from South Ferry, before NYC Ferry was founded. I think the NYC Ferry stop is in a different place altogether, and we don't have images of that. epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Major Update: Countdown Clocks now on the R, and part of the E, F, and M

http://apps.mta.info/traintime3/index.html#/app/updates http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/50659-countdown-clocks-are-active-on-the-r-line/ http://apps.mta.info/traintime3/index.html#/app/home

We should definitely add this to pages. I need sleep.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the main NYCS article. epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Great work on the subway service templates!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New template for NYC bus maps

I just wanted to give everyone a heads-up that there is now a template to call up bus maps at {{Cite NYC bus map}}. epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A template

Apparentally, several local trains each evening and / or early mornings between Inwood and Leftres Blvd run local. Is there any idea how this should be noted?Theoallen1 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I see it as "much ado about nothing". It does show that the MTA is very inconsistent with how it lists the service patterns. Even though the A is advertised as operating local during late nights, express service ends at about 10:00 in some parts, depending on the direction the train is going in. I'm not sure what to do here, I find it trivial to add the bit of information in, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Would like to see where others stand. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Franklin Avenue Shuttle#Proposed merge with BMT Franklin Avenue Line

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Franklin Avenue Shuttle#Proposed merge with BMT Franklin Avenue Line. epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Weekday late evening M trains to Chambers Street

Apparently there are scheduled M trains in the late evening during weekdays that terminate at Chambers Street in Manhattan. Using TripPlanner on the MTA's website and entering the starting station as Broadway Junction and the ending station as Chambers Street, as well as entering a departure time anywhere between 11:15 p.m. and 12:00 midnight will yield the M train as a possible travel option. Clicking the time will also show additional times that the M serves Chambers Street.

I have updated the lede paragraph of the M article as well as the ledes of the Bowery, Canal and Chambers Streets articles to reflect this. I have also updated the station listing table for the M to reflect this as well. Next on my to-do list will be to update the templates so they transclude correctly to reflect this change. I believe it has something to do with the Myrtle Avenue viaduct reconstruction. Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up. Any further help would be greatly appreciated. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the R142 and R142A articles be merged?

Closing own merge nomination since the MTA distinguishes them in their MDBF numbers and per comments below. [3] --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These two subway car fleets are virtually identical, with the exception of some minor changes that railfans would notice. The R160A and R160B articles were merged several years ago. Do you think that this should be done with the R142 (New York City Subway car) and R142A (New York City Subway car) articles? --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Aye. An excellent example of two articles that should be merged, as the tiny details that differentiate the orders (and that's all they really are, two different orders of the same model car) can be noted in the one article. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I should note that the MTA reports separate MDBF figures for these fleets. I'm reluctant to merge these. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I oppose such a merge. I agree with what Train2104 has stated, and also because the MTA considers them as separate fleet because of the fact that they are not really compatible to run together, unlike the R160s which are interoperable. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Do you know if the R40s and R40As were considered as separate fleets?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That can go both ways. I think it was the Slants that were kept separate from their modified counterparts, I'm really not sure. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The earliest committee book I have easy access to is November 2009. The car classes listed in the MDBF report were R32, R38, R40, R42, R44, R46, R62, R62A, R68, R68A, R142, R142A, R143, R160. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I slightly disagree. I think the difference between R160A/R160B and R142/R142A was that there was no actual contract called "R160" since it was composed of R160A/B. R142, on the other hand, is the actual contract number, with R142A appended as another contract altogether according to the MTA. However, I do notice that there's no such article called R32A (New York City Subway car) or R30A (New York City Subway car). Also, we should merge R40/A, R62/A, and R68/A articles if we do this. epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The R30/A's and R32/A's were built by the same manufacturers. The R142 and R142A's weren't, and because of that, I'm not sure I like the idea of merging the R160's either. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the R30 and R32. The R160s are very similar (all 2, or 3, or 4 types, I can't recall how many, but I recall some of them were separated by the type of motors that they had). A casual passenger would not be able to tell the difference, and for all intents and purposes, all R160s are virtually the same to the average passenger. epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Differing manufacturers isn't necessarily a reason to keep separate articles; Superliner (railcar) has always been a unified article, even though ten years and a manufacturer separate the last Superliner I and the first Superliner II. I think for me the deciding factor is how different the technical specifications are. If the infobox would be constantly having entries such as "foo value" (R142)<br />"foo value" (R142A) then they should probably stay separate. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Superliner cars are more of a class of cars though. I look at it like merging the Hudson Hornet and the AMC Hornet. Both cars are named "Hornet," and while one is made by an automobile company that was merged into AMC, and the other was made by AMC itself, they're not really the same cars. Or may the Big 3 all having police specials, police interceptors, and what not. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also occurred to me that several subway cars like the R30 had supplemental cars called the R30A. They were manufactured by the same company and I'm not sure if there were ever separate articles. The R40 and R40A merger is probably the only one I'd be up for, as they were built by the same manufacturer, but the main differences are the stanchion arrangements to accommodate the A/C units as well as the different ends (slants and straights). In the case of the R62s and R68s, the fact that the supplement orders were built by different companies is my rationale as to why they should stay separated, but in the case of the R160s, I wouldn't split them because despite being made by different manufacturers they were built concurrently for the most part. The order was just split amongst the two pretty much. Discuss this throrughly, these are extreme cases. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
For the 62s, 68s, 142s, and 160s, the orders are mostly the same except for the manufacturers. Therefore, there are bound to be some differences based on the manufacturer's styles. However, they do share the same contract number, apart from the letter at the end (or the lack of such). The reason only the R160 articles were merged was because there was no specific contract called "R160", only subcontracts; but there were contracts called "R62", "R68", and "R142", all with subcontracts. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Why? One, they were manufactured by different companies. Two, the features are not the same. And indeed, the contracts are different. The only rolling stock we know of that had the same contract but different companies is the R160. And technically the R40 because there was the R40, and R40A. The thing I fear is that the page will become a mess, like it did with the R40 artile because now we need to seek more citations for that page. And in terms of the R62 and R62A, they were under separate contracts. Besides, the electronic packages that came along with the cars are different.--Davidng913 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If the articles need citations afterward, they probably needed citations beforehand anyway. Also, the electronic packages are a minor difference. epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Do not merge the R142 and R142A articles. The cars are completely different from one another (different manufacturers and different components), therefore not completely compatible without post-procurement modifications, and were procured under different contracts. In the same vain, do not merge the 62/62A, 68/68A. The 32/32A has a combined article because they were built by the same company and the only difference is that one contract was funded by bond sales and had a minor lighting fixture difference. The 160A/160B merger also makes sense because the contracts were awarded to ALSKAW and were designed to be compatible from the get go. In short, the current car class article set up is fine the way it is. Don't change that. - Fan Railer (talk)
( @Fan Railer) How about the R40 article? Because I am already thinking that merging the R40 and R40A articles was an extremely bad idea. Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R40_(New_York_City_Subway_car) --Davidng913 (talk)
Leave that. It's already been done, and the cars have already been retired and scrapped anyway. Priority in this discussion should focus on cars still in service. We can go back and optimize the R40/A article whenever we have time. - Fan Railer (talk)
I guess so.--Davidng913 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
An update here; Within the past several days, I've been okay with R160 as is, due to the fact that there are only R160A's and R160B's. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
They were both ment to be compatable with each other. The R142s and R142As, however, are not.Davidng913 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should be merge (138.75.148.252 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

No it should not.--Davidng913 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this extensive merging campaign. If there's a distinction between the two types of cars, the articles should be kept as is. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I am thinking. They should be left the way they are right now. --Davidng913 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chambers-WTC-Park connection to Cortland Street revisited

Regarding the discussion we had about the future connection between Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place (New York City Subway) and Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line), and what the new name was supposed to be. I received an e-mail a week ago, that I didn't find until tonight, and Pedro Mojica of MTA's Customer Service says that they have no plans to rename either station. I'd post a link, but it would only lead to my e-mail account. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does he confirm, anyway, that the connection will be built? Vcohen (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I never knew there was any question that it was going to be built. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? If so, why don't I see sources for this fact, except for one posting on a news site? Vcohen (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Check MTA documents: http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_head.html?PROJNUM=t6041409&PLTYPE=1--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Vcohen (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. I was also a bit skeptical at first, especially when I thought that it was publicly announced that the connection was cancelled.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is very far in the future. If they do, indeed, combine the stations, their internal list of names for station complexes will be updated, and we can learn the new name from there. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not far in the future. Construction is going on. Actually go to the WTC and Cortlandt stops and see.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Large new article

I have split the Technology of the New York City Subway article from the New York City Subway article. Feel free to add links as appropriate. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I still think that there is one major problem with the article. The article is only about modern technology. It doesn't talk about the older technology that is used to keep the system up and running: power rooms, substations, pumps, the design of the subway tunnels, ventilation shafts, express tracks, etc. This article only features things that are too recent. This is a good start though. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I guess we can add old technology as we go along. We have some info about tunnel designs and express tracks, for instance, but we still need to write about power substations, vents (old and new), switches, and other things. epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I cleared my sandbox to make room for old tech. epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_18&oldid=1216716082"