Talk:C (New York City Subway service)

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

Is text in article justified by source?[edit]

In edits such as this one, an editor insists on the following text, attributed to a New York Times article: "The New York Times has called the C the 'least loved of New York City subway lines,' citing its fleet of R32s, the oldest cars in the system, frequent breakdowns, and low scheduled service."

Are the words "low scheduled service" justified by the text of the Times article? Or are they original research that go beyond what is in the source? I'm not finding anything in the Times article that says that, but maybe I'm missing something. Requesting input from previously uninvolved editors on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think 'low scheduled service' is OR, I think it's just odd English. I really don't know what it's intended to mean. can one of you clarify? --Ludwigs2 05:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It's not in the Times article. The Straphangers Campaign report [1] says that overall, maintenance is better. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed, and reworked the paragraph to bring in conformity with the source. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be resolved - ScottyBerg did the stand up thing and changed the article text to better reflect the source. The RfC appears to be resolved. --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'd suggest leaving it open, in case there are any objections or further comments. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I wasn't suggesting that the RfC be closed: I was merely saying that - from my point of view - the issue appeared to be resolved in the text of the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor who made an issue of this has not commented. He seems to be focusing on the related RfC at R32 (New York City Subway car), but I assume he knows about this. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I missed commenting here, as I said at R32, the info belongs here unquestionably - the source is unambiguous as relating to the C line; I agree that from my perspective the issue has been resolved.--Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove template[edit]

The templates reflect the current subway car assignments and it should not be removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:C (New York City Subway service)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • Its route emblem, or "bullet", is blue since it uses the IND Eighth Avenue Line in Manhattan. - Maybe clarify "Manhattan" to "Midtown" since the B and D also use the Eight Avenue Line in Manhattan, but are both orange.
  • In 1988, the Kand C were consolidated into one service, and during the 1990s, the C's routing was altered to create the current uniform service pattern - What is a "uniform service pattern"?
  • On August 28, 1977, late night AA service was eliminated; the A now runs fully local at night. - Did the A begin running fully local at night then? If so, please clarify that.
  • Now, five A trips in each direction run from 59th Street–Columbus Circleto Rockaway Park during rush hours, with the Rockaway Park Shuttle (renamed from H to S) operating between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park at all times. - Again, if this is tied to the 1992 change, make that clear, otherwise seperate them.
  • Starting on May 2, 1999, C trains were extended to Euclid Avenue on evenings and weekends; the C now runs local in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and the A express, at all times except late nights. - Same request as above.
  • Most trains on the C are only 480 feet (146 m) long due to lower ridership levels on this service. - "Lower" compared to what? Maybe specify numbers for comparison.
  • For the summers of 2011 and 2012, R46 trains ran on the C while R32s were moved to the A to save their older air conditioning units from having to work underground at all times.[3] This contrasted to those on the rest of the "B" Division (except for the Eastern Division and G train), which are 600 feet (183 m) long.[3] - The order of these two sentences should be flipped or they should be rephrased.
  • The R46 trains running on the C were 600 feet long. - Which R46 trains? All of them or just one of the years? Please clarify.
  • What standard is used for determining the connections for the route chart? I wasn't aware of a PATH connection at W4. Does one exist? Is it within the station?
@StudiesWorld: All 1A issues solved. As for the PATH station, it is next to the station and is similar to a connection to a SBS bus line. Its not within the system. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No concerns exist here.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    A list of sources exist and follows guidelines
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    I have significant concerns about www.erictb.info, thejoekorner.com, Second Avenue Sagas as self-published sources.
@StudiesWorld: Addressed thejoekorner. I added "via=" and the real publisher. Also removed the Secondavesaga source as it did nothing to help. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: I have removed most of the erictb sources. For the 9/11 sentence, I added SecondAveSagas for the MAP only. The map is by the MTA. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanAir88, thanks for the improvement. However, I am unwilling to promote this without the removal of all citations to erictb or thejoekorner.com, with the exception of images of MTA documents. Could you clarify the remaining citations to those sources, by either explaining to me why they should be permitted to remain or replacing them? Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: TheJoekorner refs are for MTA documents and transclusions. No additional info is being told by Joe himself (Thats why via= is there). Also see the G train article. As for that one Second Ave Saga ref that I added, it is because it contains an official MTA Image of the service change after 9/11. The erictb sources are placeholders and they will hopefully go away soon. The first instance of it is guaranteed to as it does not add to that sentence (It is only kept for the refname). The other two instances, I am trying to find a replacement source. It is very hard and do you suggest removing if no source is found? Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanAir88, thanks for the quick response. With the two other instances, my instinct would be to leave it and wait to promote it once those sources have been replaced because they seem plausibly accurate and would likely to be supported in another source. However, I would also be open to their removal. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: I will try my best to replace the two Eric sources. I really want to get this promoted in this review and will do what it takes. If I cannot find any sources, removal may be the best option. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. It contains no original research:
    No indications of original research
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Some copyvio appeared on Earwig, but it was a reasonably unavoidable construction. If possible, rephrase: The R32s have been criticized for breaking down far more often than any fleet in the system, averaging just 33,527 miles between failures compared to 400,000 miles for the average subway car.
Done AmericanAir88(talk) 13:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I am unaware of any overlooked aspects and it seems to cover the logical topics, but something significant could be absent.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I would prefer the inclusion of a prose route description, but other route GAs lack it, so it clearly isn't expected.
  2. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Definite negative perspective in parts, but this is reflective of the general coverage of the topic.
  3. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No recent issues and no reason to believe that issues will arise.
  4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images, including those under trademark, are used appropriately.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    While some images would be improved by alttext, particularly the route bullets, this is not required and the captions are satisfactory.
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Please address the above concerns All concerns have been addressed.


@StudiesWorld: Thank you so much for taking this on. I am on a trip in Chicago at the moment so the review may be a bit slower than my usual response time. I will absolutely address these issues. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

@StudiesWorld: I have successfully removed the Self-Published-Sources. All Erictb refs are gone, the Second Ave Saga is a MTA document, and JoeKorner is as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R211 replacement[edit]

I have removed the statement that the R211s will replace the R32s on the C in 2021-2022 if everything goes to plan. It is unsourced, failing our verifiability policy, and speculative (claiming that the C train will have a certain fleet in the future), failing our Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. If someone has a reliable source for both statements that will end the speculation, then feel free to add it. epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleets can interchange Edit War[edit]

"Fleets can interchange between A and C". Why there is an edit war going on right here? Please add references when adding the statement, thank you.SunDawn (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)][reply]

@SunDawn: IP's were being disruptive and potentially violating WP:3RR. This is why it got semi-protected. LOMRJYO(About × contribs) 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please, don't SHOUT. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, R160's returned to the (C) line with 3 trains used on March 4, 2024, since the (M) was shortened to 57 Street in Manhattan instead of to Forest Hills 71 Avenue, requiring less trains for service as well. So now ENY has extra trains available for the (C) lines usage as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:7800:18BB:540F:A4B1:F9E1:465B (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=1212311741"