Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Unidentified locations

[[:|WT:NYCPT
WT:NYCS]]

Archives

Caution

Imdanumber1's suggestion reminded me of something. We have to be careful when we branch out into areas where we have not previously worked (e.g., LIRR). There are surely some hard-working editors who have put a lot of time and effort into these articles, and I don't think they'd appreciate it if we just barged in, declared that the articles are within our scope, and just start making changes as we see fit. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MTA themselves are some excellent resources since they have addresses for the stations and everything. And as I visit my cousins in Nassau County during Christmas, Winter, Spring and Summer break, they usually stop by LIRR stations, and I take a few snapshots with their cameras, and I'll start getting to this when I get my own camera. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some pictures from the New York Transit Museum, taken a few days ago, including some nice stock pictures of the interiors of several vintage cars. I'll get around to this in a few days. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you understand what Larry is saying. It might be a good idea to allow regular editors from newly-added parts of this project to realize that "their" articles are now part of a project, and not try to barge in with naming conventions and other changes. --NE2 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be prudent to invite the major contributors to the project. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to all at WP:NYCPT and to all a good night!!! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Wikitable NYCS

Is it possible that we can create a wikitable for the subway services and subway lines? We have an infobox to sub the hard-code one, should we create a wikitable to sub the hard-code one? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Larry, the project has an infobox (Infobox NYCS) to replace the hard-code one, shoudn't we have our own project wikitable to replace the hard-code one (probably to be named Wikitable NYCS)? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting some sort of template for the table? I've never seen this type of template. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; Is it possible we can do this? I'm going to the help desk for some help on this. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's theoretically possible, but the template would be ridiculously complex. In the time spent writing and revising the template until it works flawlessly, one could instead finish inserting the tables for all the services—twice. There are only 26 or so articles that need this table, while most templates are used to insert content (usually much smaller than one of our tables) that is repeated over dozens and hundreds of articles. Even after the template was finished, there would have to be hundreds of arguments to specify every piece of information in the table: station names, service icons, accessibility status, transfers, and connections. Tables such as this are generally not made into templates; they're far too complicated and not ubiquitous enough. Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future G train service change

In the G train article, it said that beginning in 2007, the G line will be extended to Church Avenue. I don't think we should include any future events because they can change without warning, even though right now we have proof. I think we should remove that until it happens. Do you agree or disagree? The Legendary Ranger 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it changes, we can change it too! That's the beauty of Wikipedia. And to your question, disagree. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it does change, then we just simply remove the notice. That's all. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with leaving the notice, but it should be very clear that the change is reported. I disagree with the current wording of the article, which makes it seem as if the change is from an official source. Something like, "According to some reports, the G will be extended" should suffice. Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by who? If there are no reliable sources, please remove it. --NE2 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is that New York Daily News article that was referenced; it's reliable for anything that's not celebrity gossip =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I saw the superscript 5, went down to the references, and clicked on #5. I'm going to fix the reference format. --NE2 06:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R68 PAGE

some retard is vandalizing the R68 page again. I think we oughta protect that article. The Legendary Ranger 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report it to Larry or Achimp, they'll notify the user and sprotect the article. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected. alphachimp. 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

In order to reduce unnecessary demand on the servers and make the article source easier to read, particularly for new users, please could members of this project substitute the simple linking templates.

For example {{PATH}} produces just PATH. While this is obviously easier to type, there is no need for it to be transcluded, so please can you replace {{PATH}} with {{subst:PATH}} when editing and creating articles. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more details, including a list of bots what might be able to help. Thryduulf 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a problem with a bot with our NYCS templates, and an editor had to go through very long work to revert the bot's edits. We do not want to go through that again. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this actually seems like a fairly sensible point. I'm not sure the template is doing that much good. The incident with Cyde/Mark Shepherd isn't quite the same. Also, Marc Shepherd chose to revert an extremely difficult way. It's quite easy for an admin to revert edits. alphachimp. 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The articles referenced by these templates aren't likely to be renamed very soon, and even if they were, redirects would keep everything together. On the other hand, the service templates were less intended to reference articles than to display easily-changed information—which can't be handled by redirects. The templates I can think of that can probably be subst-ed are:

There may be more. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before Alphachimpbot does his thing (and he does it quite well :)), can somebody tell me why the templates have </pre> at the end. It looks like Tinlinkin went in and added them last August...but I have no idea what they do. alphachimp. 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The </pre> is really unnecessary for this project's templates. I must have forgot to remove it when I copied code from another template, in my haste to add templates to the category I created. (It's a good thing the <pre> start tag wasn't added.)

<pre> just does this.

Tinlinkin 09:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool. Thanks! I'm removing them and subst'ing out the templates :). alphachimp. 09:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

110th Street stations

Often, the MTA labels the stations along 110th Street in Manhattan names such as "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street)" and "Central Park North (110th Street)". I object to the use of these forms in our articles because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the parentheses look awkward in the article titles (e.g., "Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)"). I feel that the relevant articles should be named and referred to as follows:

110th Street–Cathedral Parkway (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)
110th Street–Cathedral Parkway (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
110th Street–Central Park North (IRT Lenox Avenue Line)

This may be a fairly insignificant point, but I feel the need to hold some discussion on any matter of debate. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like signs, at least on 8th Avenue, only say 110th Street: [1] On the Lenox Avenue Line, I see usage of a dash on signs: [2] It's possible that the Cathedral Parkway ones use dashes on some segns; can anyone who rides those trains verify? --NE2 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the usage of Cathedral Parkway over 110th Street, such as Cathedral Parkway (110th Street) because that is what the crosstown street is known by. 110th Street is secondary, and should therefore not go first. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or not it's relevant, but conductors definitely use the form Larry was refering to. I prefer the form he proposed above (possibly for that reason, maybe for other subconscious ones). alphachimp. 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

110th Street is a secondary name, but since street signs also classify 110th Street as a different name where the trains serve the station, the name should follw the same format as the street signs, as well as the map, and the MTA's tables. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Larry's plan. Plus using parenthesis is clumsy and his idea accounts for both Cathedral Parkway and 110th Street. As we have told you on countless occasions, the MTA's nomencalture is not our nomenclature. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we would be using the MTA's nomenclature, at least on Lenox Avenue - can anyone say what the in-station signs say on Broadway-7th and 8th? --NE2 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Broadway–7th station has "110 St–Cathedral Parkway," while the 8th Av station has "110 St" on signage and "110 St–Cathedral Parkway" in mosaics. And for concerns about references: the schedules (warning: PDF!} for the 1 and C show "110 St–Cathedral Pkwy," the B has the variant "Cathedral Pkwy–110 St" (but still without parentheses), and the 2 and 3 have "Central Park North–110 St" (still without parentheses). Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Frankly, I've never heard anyone call it "Cathedral Parkway." Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I support us using the schedules instead of the map, because things are edited due to space restrictions. Schedules don't have this problem. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some "110 St-Cathedral Pkwy" signage in the (A)(B)(C) station (not including the mosaics). Also the A has "Cathedral Parkway (110 St)". Coolguy82 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could always choose names from service information tables from here. They seem consistent.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could simply make our own decisions about the names, as we have been (and should be) doing. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While were on the subject, I would like to reopen discussion on complexes and stations with misleading names. There needs to be a new policy on naming stations, something that every user can agree with and not something just copypasted from a state agency, which is for the most part, inconsistent as well. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the MTA doesn't realize their mistakes, and because of this, we'll have to make the decision for them. As for the 110th Street naming, 110th should go last, because as on the street page, it is also commonly known as Cathedral Parkway and Central Park North west of Fifth Avenue, and common means more relatively known as. Bottom line. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. PCH, I fixed the category link you posted above (use a colon to insert category link w/o placing page as part of the category).

Huh? Yeah, it is also commonly known as Cathedral Parkway and Central Park North. That doesn't mean that those are more common than "110th Street." Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underconstruction tag

I think we should create our own under construction tag in order to prevent other editors from editing our tables while we are expanding or revamping them. Any suggestions on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very bad idea. Wikipedia should be able to be edited by anyone at any time. With a few exceptions we sincerely try to make that possible. The preview feature is there so that we don't have to tag articles as 'underconstruction'. alphachimp. 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the best thing to do is just get it all done in one shot. Use lots of cut-and-paste for repeating wiki-code, and try to incorporate parts of the old tables so you don't have to do so much typing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

I've started tagging talk pages with importance (Category:New York City public transportation articles by importance), and before I get too far I'd like to discuss how to decide how important something is. Here's my proposal:

Top: Transportation in New York City and major systems, as seen by the public (LIRR, NJT, possibly New Jersey Transit rail operations?, but not Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority or AirTrain JFK)
High: individual heavy rail and light rail lines and services, operating and holding companies, less-major systems, the most major stations (should former major terminals like Exchange Place be here?), some lists like New York City Subway rolling stock
Mid: major transfer stations, individual surface lines
Low: other stations, miscellaneous articles like minor bridges

--NE2 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this importance structure. Are airports and ferries also part of this project? Tinlinkin 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd include airports, since their importance for intra-region transportation is very little, but ferries are certainly closely related to the other modes, especially historically. Most of the crosstown streetcar lines in lower Manhattan had both terminals at ferries. --NE2 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call air travel "public transportation" anyway. =) I would not include bridges and automobile-related transport. Otherwise, it's a good idea. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges that carried rail should be fine though, like all the Manhattan-Brooklyn bridges except the Triborough. There are also rail-only bridges, like the Hell Gate Bridge. --NE2 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I don't think that we should really have "official" scope over those articles, since their rail aspects are secondary (except for rail-only ones). This certainly doesn't mean that we can't improve them! Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure I agree with the method by which you are displaying the importance (i.e., Talk:New York City Subway). It sort of throws off the visual structure of the TrainsWikiProject template box with it's "secondary" colored box… it's hard to explain, easy if you see it. Surely there must be another way to indicate importance without using more colors, such as text saying "This article has _____ importance under WP:NYCPT" or something of that sort. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was already part of the template, but had just not been used before. --NE2 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan streetcars

Does anyone know if there's a book that covers the history of the Manhattan streetcar lines from construction to abandonment, including details of which company built exactly which trackage?

For a much more specific question, the 1899 map shows that the main line of the Metropolitan Crosstown Railway ran to the (West) 14th Street Ferry. I can see the trackage along 13th, Greenwich, and Waverley, and it used trackage rights over the Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad on McDougal, but I have no idea how it went from McDougal to Spring, where it continued east. --NE2 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost exclusively a subway guy in my experience, but I'll keep an eye out. Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... I actually found the answer. "The Metropolitan Cross-Town Railway Company, which was incorporated for the purpose of constructing and operating a line of surface road from Grand-Street Ferry through East-street, Delancey-slip, the Bowery, Springstreet, South Fifth-avenue, Fourth and Masdougal streets, Waverley-plane, Bank-street,..." --NE2 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

137th Street and Wesley Autrey

Recently the article 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) was edited include a mention of Wesley Autrey, who on January 2, 2006, saved an epileptic who had fallen onto the tracks there. I'm not questioning whether Autrey's actions are worthy of mention, but I'm not entirely sure that this event is notable enough to be included here. Will it still be notable in the next six months, or the next year? Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the article on the person exists, it makes sense to mention him there. I'm not sure if he himself (or the event) is notable, but if anything I'd guess that if it's borderline it would be merged to the station article. --NE2 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info should stay. The guy is a legend. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then why do only two articles link to his page (not counting talk pages and such)? Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever links to an article does not assert the article's notability, only the subject itself. Since he has appeared on several news and talk outlets, I would think he is notable. What other articles would he be relevant in? Tinlinkin 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all right, but perhaps someone would be so kind as to clean up the mention at 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)? It reads fairly awkwardly and is not at all polished. Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table headers in bus lists

BWCNY recently changed the headers on list of bus routes in the Bronx and the other similar pages from "from"/"to" to "terminal A"/"terminal B". I reverted, since to me "terminal A" implies some sort of official designation by the MTA of that terminal as "A". However, the "from"/"to" could be misleading, implying it is a one-way trip. What do you think? --NE2 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From/To looks misleading. I'd rather Terminal "A" and "B". And no, it's not used by the MTA. In fact they have no nomenclature for bus terminals. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Terminal A" implies that the terminal is designated "A" by the MTA. How about a double-width column saying just "Terminals"? --NE2 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the double-width column. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template

I made template:WPNYPT for talk pages of non-rail NYPT articles. --NE2 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with Template:NYC simplebus

~~This template~~ Template:NYC simplebus has been used to link to bus routes, but on the depot page; I've been moving the lists to borough pages. Should we make a new template to link by borough and phase this one out? Should we make redirects from M1 (New York City bus) or a similar form to the borough lists, or the former streetcar line where applicable? (A problem arises when a bus route was multiple lines.) --NE2 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm not too keen on the borough by borough lists, if only for the reason that they seem to be purely listcruft. I'm not sure what other way we could make such a transition without destroying my hard work from over the summer (trust me, the bus line templates were horrible to do). Why do you want to make lists by borough instead of depot? alphachimp 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the lists? They have not only the terminals and general route but the history, including what streetcar line it replaced, if any (I haven't done this for the Bronx yet). The ones listed by depot are more "listcrufty", including operating times, which routes use articulated buses, etc. I would also think that bus routes can be shifted to other depots relatively easily. There's some old discussion on Talk:MTA New York City Transit buses too. --NE2 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWCNY disagrees with my removal of details like service times when moving the lists from the depot pages, and says that he "will edit back unless you give me good answer." I explained that we don't normally list information like this because it can be easily changed, and is better looked up on the MTA's site, and I don't think it improves the article at all. Wikipedia is also not biased towards the present; if we included the operating times; we'd also include all the changes that have been made in the past to these times, adding even more "cruft". --NE2 07:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, whatever we decide, I should be able to semi-automate with AWB. --NE2 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like the idea of creating redirects - that way we totally automate it with a simple change of NYC simplebus once all the redirects are made. Any comments? --NE2 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of listing the bus routes by borough instead of by depot. Besides, the bus article should be New York City Bus. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be disambiguated with New York City bus (or New York City bus route?); see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic. --NE2 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, no. The MTA publicly brands it as "New York City Bus". And to quote " Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MTA may brand some of them as "New York City Bus", but not the ones operated by the MTA Bus Company. But if we were going by the branding/company, we'd use "New York City Transit" or something similar. --NE2 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it simple, how about naming it... " MTA New York City Transit Bus ". BWCNY 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal, NE2: I put in a fairly large amount of work this summer adding bus lines with AWB. It took many hours to correlate individual bus lines, train stops, and depots...many hours that I'll never get back. You're welcome to change them to be on whatever you want, but realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work. I would encourage you to link the templates properly, but realize that any work in doing that is going to have to be entirely your own. alphachimp 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I really *hope* that the above was a massive overreaction, and that you'll prove me entirely wrong. alphachimp 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the edit window, it says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The same would presumably apply to other work. I do thank you for doing the tedious work, but listing by borough seems to be a lot better for the readers who are looking for the history of a route.

By the way, do you mind commenting on the above issue of whether operating times should be listed? Thank you. --NE2 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems entirely wrong for anyone interested in bus routes on the basis of their depots. Thanks for quoting the edit window. I had totally forgotten the text that appeared the last 20,000 times I clicked "save page". I guess somewhat of a reminder was in order. Thank you. --alphachimp 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down; no one is saying your work was bad. And someone wishing to see bus routes by depot can still see which buses operate out of it with a link to the borough list, where most people will be looking. See also Talk:New York City Transit buses. --NE2 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make assumptions about my level of "calm". I'd strongly recommend that you read WP:AGF. As for that discussion, you revived a months old dialogue between several editors that are not a part of this project any more. alphachimp 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is not being calm acting in bad faith? You're obviously being a bit hostile here, though your intent seems good. --NE2 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm really missing the part where you suggesting that I read the bottom of the edit window is not overtly hostile. Perhaps you could inform me? alphachimp 08:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You implicitly recommended that we consider going back to listing by depot because it would be "destroying all of my hard work". I pointed out that your work is subject to said "destruction" any time you submit an edit. --NE2 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Implicitly recommended"? Again, you're jumping to tons and tons of conclusions about the meaning of my comments. Scroll up and reread. Thus far, you've accused me of being "hostile", warned me to "please calm down" and suggested that I read the bottom of the edit window. alphachimp 09:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to "realize that you are simply destroying all of my hard work". I don't see how that can be interpreted otherwise; you wanted me to think carefully and include that fact in the decision, possibly tipping the scale towards going back to sorting by depot.

Anyway, why are we meta-arguing about this rather than discussing which way is better for the readers and editors? --NE2 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it's impossible to have such a discussion when you've just been told to "calm down". alphachimp 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hard to have such a discussion when you've been told that "you are simply destroying all of my hard work". I would like to have such a discussion though; can we stop this pointless argument? --NE2 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other description for eliminating the effort someone put in? If so, I'd love to hear it. alphachimp 09:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Improving the work I started"? --NE2 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how that's an apt description for removing someone's work and then demanding they "calm down", but perhaps that works for you. It's absurd to discuss anything with such accusations in the air. alphachimp 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't discuss it, but don't complain when you don't like the outcome. I'm going to remove this whole thread soon as not relevant. --NE2 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll promptly restore it. I'm not sure what you're seeking to achieve with your incivility. alphachimp 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking to achieve a return to working on the encyclopedia rather than arguing back and forth with one-liners. --NE2 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually subscribe to that famous maxim ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") wholeheartedly, but in this case I am completely supportive of Alphachimp's reluctance to rework the bus structures. Frankly, he has been extremely modest when referring to the amount of effort he put into the bus templates (and related articles) over this past summer. "A fairly large amount of work" does not even begin to come close to describing the unholy amount of sheer bruntwork and mind-numbingly repetitive editing he did. No offense to you, NE2, but I'm not sure that anyone who was not part of WP:NYCS over the summer can fully comprehend the incredible magnitude of the contributions Alphachimp made; day after day, week after week, month after month, his name dominated my watchlist. If that had been me, I'd be a little more than hesitant about a complete overhaul. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with which way of listing the routes is better? --NE2 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing directly, I'm just saying that I'm understanding of why Alphachimp is reluctant to change it. I'm not endorsing one way or the other. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, in a mention of a bus route, I would first think about the bus routes in an entire borough. But links to the depot better reflect regional purposes. So either way is fine with me, though I am leaning toward the latter. It is painful to change a status quo, especially with one user's contributions, so the reason to change it must be compelling. I'd also like to know how other major transportation systems link their bus routes. Tinlinkin 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to do the work to make the change. --NE2 11:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphachimp, an experienced sysop, has done some great work on that bus template. However, it would be more sensible to organize the bus services into boroughs because not many people would think about buses in a list by depots. Besides, it would save more time by referring to one map by listing by borough than referring to more than one map by listing by depot. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The depot list can stay, but the bus article should be renamed New York City Bus? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "bus article" are you referring to? Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Transit buses→New York City Bus --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be re-name to MTA New York City Transit Bus, it should not be confused with different bus operators in New York City. BWCNY 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to disambiguate it, just use {{Otheruses4}} and fill in the appropriate parameters after the move. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not shove Template:Otheruses4 all over the place and get lenient with article naming, please. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea

Move the main article to Buses in New York City. The existing article already descrives operations of NYCT, MaBSTOA and MTA Bus. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MTA combines NYCTA buses and MaBSTOA buses, but separates MTA Bus. I'm not sure if we should do this, but right now that's how the article is. If we expand the scope, we should probably still only cover MTA buses, since the private operators don't have the same behind-the-scenes details that the article should cover (funding etc). --NE2 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I:t should be called New York City Bus, but if we want to include private bus routes, put it in the bus list for the appropriate borough. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subway challenge

If someone is up to it, can you take a look at Subway Challenge and try to improve it? Thanks. Tinlinkin 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be up for it, but I'll do it later on sometime. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs references more than anything, right now. You can clean it up all you want, but the whole thing looks like a large amount of original research. I'd advise finding some sources before doing any article editing. Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors for bus text

Since we don't use colors for subway services, which are colored in real life, we shouldn't use colors for buses ([3]), which are only colored on the map. Does anyone oppose this, or should it be added to the WikiProject page under a "standards" section? --NE2 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure there is a policy on this, it also goes towards personal prefrences. Many Hong Kong metro (I don't know the real system name) articles have colored text on the line names. As well as countless others. My say on this is policy wise, I'll od what it says. Personally wise, I want colored text. It all depends. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but Larry was opposed to it and removed it from the navbox last month. I strongly think they should be on the navbox page. Any more thoughts? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I find nothing wrong with looking to other projects for precedent, but in this case… the Hong Kong pages are wrong. Just wrong. I could not care less about whether you show bus names in color or not, but any links should not be colored. From my previous objection:

Using colors for links is generally tacky and unsightly. But even discounting personal opinions, it messes with people's preconceived notions of links. For the vast majority of people, links are blue. Period. You see blue text among a sea of black, it's a hyperlink. With the colors, that's not so readily apparent. Sure, one could just mouse over the letters and see for oneself—but that shouldn't be necessary. Differently-colored links, unless all links are the same color, smacks of bad web design and poor usability.

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 09:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B110 bus?

Can someone find a reliable source about the B110 bus listed on list of bus routes in Brooklyn? It's not on the MTA's site, and I can't find any such sources for the number, only for the fact that they operate. --NE2 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listed on the MTA bus site, because it is not a MTA operation. It is run by Private Transportation (the actual name of the company) and is used mostly by the jewish community, although it is open to all. I think the same company also runs the CitySights buses. You can search (or ask) someone on SubChat's BusChat board. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try running a google search, but I've never hard of that bus route before. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the B110 sometimes uses local streets between Borough Park and Williamsburg, to avoid BQE traffic. They use Vanderbilt and Park Avenues (<rant>I should know, they pass me everyday while I wait for the B69, which never comes and...</rant>)

I found a source for the number: [4] --NE2 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice source for Brooklyn history

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1841 to 1902 has been scanned and placed online: [5] --NE2 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote Hudson Avenue Line from that. --NE2 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station complexes

I no longer think it is suitable to classify stations that have the New York City Subway prefix as complexes due to naming issues. I believe that we should now classify stations as either transfer-points or shared. See below:

Stations that have transfer availability should be called transfer-points, as long as the transfer whollies within fare control via a passageway (stations like 168th Street, Times Square, and Grand Central)
Stations that have across-the-platform or level-to-level transfers should be called shared subway stations (stations like Seventh Avenue, Manhattan, Queensboro Plaza, and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, 50th Street, Manhattan, and Jamaica Center)

Appropriate category names would be:

Category:New York City Subway transfer-points

and

Category:Shared New York City Subway stations

Any thoughts on this? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category that points out transfer stations seems to be overcategorization to me. And why introduce a foreign-sounding terminology? Tinlinkin 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus links, again

I've made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/bus redirects of how the bus links could redirect to the line articles; there are only two with streetcar origins that don't have a clear target (and with the B23, those two short lines were once planned to connect, so they could logically be covered in one article). The new bus routes from B1 to B20 (and B31, formerly a branch of the B3, and B82, once the B5) were all introduced early by the BMT, and could easily be in one combined article detailing the BMT's early bus routes. That leaves only the B77, B83, B100, B103, and B110, which could redirect to the master list. --NE2 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus structure, again

Please correct me if I have it wrong, but as far as I can tell this is the real-world structure of the NYC-area bus system:

The New York City Transit Authority operates buses in all boroughs, some of them owned (and operated?) by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority.
The MTA Bus Company operates buses mainly in Queens.
The Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority operates buses mainly in Nassau County.
Suffolk Transit (non-MTA) operates buses mainly in Suffolk County.
Private companies operate some buses in Queens and Long Island, some of these MTA-subsidized.
To the public, the only difference between the NYCTA/MaBSTOA, MTA Bus, and MSBA buses is the text on the side. Otherwise they are basically the same. The subsidized private routes are also very similar, being included on maps, but have some differences. (Do they take MetroCards?) And the few unsubsidized buses are very different. Every bus route, public, subsidized, or unsubsidized, is numbered in the same fashion.

Now, assuming that the above is true, here are my suggestions:

One article, possibly named Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses (New York), covers the details of all the public buses, which to the public look very similar, and also some general information on the private routes.
The articles on the individual authorities - NYCTA, MaBSTOA, MTA Bus, and MSBA, only cover the "behind-the-scenes" information like funding and organizational history.
The articles on the private operators cover their history and other details.
The lists of buses by borough cover all buses with that prefix, whether public or private. It's not clear where express and multi-borough buses should go, but this is a minor concern.

Can I please get some comments? Thank you. --NE2 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would make too large of a page. Then we'd have to seperate them, again. And NYCT is not an MTA agency. They are only affaliated to the MTA via board members. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be too large of a page? I assume you mean the one covering details of buses; I'm not proposing to include lists or anything in there, just commonalities like funding, fares, and numbering: in other words, an expansion of New York City Transit buses to include MTA Bus and MTA Long Island Bus. And how is NYCTA not an MTA agency? It's branded "MTA New York City Transit", and its operations are all branded "MTA something". --NE2 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it is not an MTA agency, per se. They are three different agencies, although they provide the same service, they are three different providers in the legal sense and in some cases the popular sense. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, it is an MTA agency:

"As part of a public image campaign, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has assigned "PR" names to each of its affiliates and subsidiaries. These popular names differ from the legal names, which are used in all contracting and legal matters, and are used on public notices, maps, publications, vehicles and stations. The PR name of the New York City Transit Authority is MTA New York City Transit."

--NE2 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliates. Key word there. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stands: does the public see a big difference between the NYCTA, MTA Bus, and MTA Long Island Bus operations? You're arguing about fine points of the corporate structure that may or may not be important. To clarify, would someone transferring from a N* (LI Bus) to a Q* (MTA Bus) to a B* (NYCTA) notice any difference beyond the livery? --NE2 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thing. The public probably notices slight differences at the least. While you may see them as one big happy family, they are still legally seperate entities, reguardless of the branding, logo and other decorations. You notice that while Apple Inc makes desktops and Powerbooks with a white style, they don't have share the same article. They might do the same thing, but they are different products, with different branding in the public mind and in the mind of the U.S. patent office. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they should be the same article; I'm saying there should be one article that describes the common details of all the bus operations, and then separate articles about the operating authorities with "behind the scenes" details. --NE2 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, how do you think it should be organized? Here's my impression of what you want:

New York City Transit buses covers the bus operations of the NYCTA
- NYCTA and MaBSTOA are short articles about the history and structure
MTA Bus Company covers the history, structure, and operations
MTA Long Island Bus covers the history, structure, and operations

Is that correct? My question then is where we should describe the naming/numbering system. --NE2 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance, again

Should passenger equipment be mid or low importance? --NE2 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with mid. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mid. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City Subway transfer-points is listed for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points --NE2 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you would make a comment in the future instead of maing a speedy cfd. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be nice as possible about this. We all said no. You went ahead anyways. That is not consensus. That is "do what I want"-ism. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said no, PCH. I made a presentation, but a few people were misled. Only two people made a post, but thy were misled. I was trying to prove my point by creating the cats so peolewould undersand what I was trying to say. However, if I caused any discrepancy, I'm sorry. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made a list in your userspace that would have done the same thing. --NE2 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can say for myself and Larry V that we were not "misled." We both could see that you want a category for subway stations that allow transfers between multiple lines. We couldn't see the point of creating a subcategory of these stations. (That means we said "no.") I said (in some other words) that your original categories as proposed above would be esoteric, meaning understood or designed for someone within a limited circle of users. Each station article mentions how connections are available; why should a category with a narrow intersection and/or overlapping amongst the same entity be created? Tinlinkin 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article has been speedied, so the cfd has closed. But I will say what I have to say anyway:

To NE2: I do not think that tht was a good-faith nomination, IMO. You could have commented here first, and see what others had to say, instead of listing the CFD just like that.

To PCH: I was not going against consensus, if that is what you believed, I was simply trying to make a point to other people so they could undertand me better. Besides, you never posted a comment to begin with.

To Tinlinkin: If you wre going to say no, you could have just said so, or fully state why you diagreed.

To Larry: Because you didn't understand me, I thought I would show you what I was trying to say, because I alreay explained what I had in mind, I couldn't get clearer.

Per what I said, I apologize for any possible discrepancy I may have caused. But why would the category be esoteric? Why can't we have categories that show different types of complexes for the system? Subway stations, like Broadway Junction, shouldn't be in Category:New York City Subway stations. Why can't we have different categories to see what types of different station complexes? I'm a bit confused.... --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have (and still can) do it with a list. --NE2 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary. Point blank. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with having a category for different types of stations. I don't know what a list can offer instead a category, IMO. Then again, I don't object to it...it might be better that way.... --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I disagree using a regular list instead of the category: we have to update the list evey time a new complex is merged. With the cat, there is no need to do that. Just add the cat to a page,and that's it. Are you guys sure we should do this with a list? If you guys ant to, I wouldn't object. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would only have to do it when the MTA builds a new connection, which is presumably rare. --NE2 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. They are ceating two as we speak: South Ferry and Fulton Street.

So when they finish we edit the list to say so. We'd have to add the page to the category anyway. --NE2 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool, that's fine with me. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I didn't understand what you were suggesting, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. What I didn't understand was the purpose of the categorization. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, but I'm going to create a list intead of a category, which is what NE2 said. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to oppose the categorization anyway, since I felt it was unnecessary. I just wanted you to lay out what you wanted to do and what your intended purpose was. On that note, you never answered my question and dictated the point of the category. By extension, is this list really necessary or useful at all? I can easily imagine this list being placed on WP:AFD and being deleted as cruft. What will be the real usefulness of the article? And no, making the list for the purpose of having a list is not legitimate. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what should we do then? There are different types of stations that are connected, and they deserve having some sort of list. What should we do? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Avenue station

Some users believe the name should be Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). I for one think that the name should be Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway) because it is a shared station, and to disambig it from the Brooklyn station, we should use otheruses4 template. What should be done here? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't go with (IND Queens Boulevard Line) because it's on two lines, that doesn't mean we should go with (New York City Subway). We could somehow add Manhattan to the disambiguation - Seventh Avenue (Manhattan New York City Subway station)? --NE2 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one line alone, the Queens Bouelvard Line. How could it be on the Sixth Avenue Line when that continues north to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue? There's no need for a disambig.Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to IND Sixth Avenue Line, the Sixth Avenue Line, or at least a branch of it, runs through the station. If the connection used by the B and D through the station isn't the Sixth Avenue Line, what is it? [6] doesn't show any track connections to the Queens Boulevard Line. --NE2 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, Seventh Avenue (Manhattan New York City Subway station) would be a little long. Besides, we don't include "station" anymore. And addinng the borough, I don't know. But right now, I'm neutral. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... why wouldn't Seventh Avenue (IND) work? The other station is on the BMT. --NE2 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or (IND Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line)? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. The Queens Boulevard Line is the main trunk at the point. The Sixth Avenue Line seems to be a branch that piggybacks at the most. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where checking out the talk archives would help in understanding. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, someone suggested using "New York City Subway" in article names. This idea was rejected because there are often multiple stations with the same name; other alternatives such as using divisions alone ("IND", "BMT", "IND") were rejected as being too vague. Here was born the custom of using line names. Later on, someone else came up with the idea of merging certain stations into single articles for complexes. Since no station articles used "New York City Subway" at this point, it was convenient to use that phrase in for these new station complex article names.

The point of this history lesson? Only this: The number one consideration should be to keep station article names clearly distinct from one another. Yes, "New York City Subway" should generally be used for stations with two or more lines. However, this guideline should always be superseded by the need for distinction in article names. If there were only one Seventh Avenue station, then sure, "Seventh Avenue (New York City Subway)" would be just fine; in fact, I wouldn't accept anything else. However, this is not the case; therefore, "New York City Subway" should not even be considered.

In addition, using Template:Otheruses4 should never be used in lieu of clear article names. Look at well-disambiguated sets of pages. Each has article names that are distinct by themselves, with parenthesized phrases to make the differentiation; the dab links serve only to remove any doubt. If one article does not differentiate its title, it is because it is almost always the intended subject for the phrase that makes up the title. Neither Seventh Avenue station is "well-known-enough" to claim a "top" spot here.

Now, some might say that "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)" is unclear, since it doesn't say anything about the Sixth Avenue Line. I agree, it's a little off, yes. However, the article makes it quite clear that both lines serve the station; more importantly, the two Seventh Avenue stations are made quite distinct. "Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line)" is somewhat awkward; it suggests that it is on a line called the "Queens Boulevard/Sixth Avenue Line" (sort of like the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). Using one line in the name is the usual thing; so, which line would be best? Well, emergency exit signs at Seventh/53rd say "Queens Line", so we might as well use that one. The main idea is that we use one line.

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do the exit signs say at similar joint stations, like West 4th Street and Jay Street? --NE2 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Foruth Street is a moot point. Two different lines on two different levels. Jay Street is labeled as part of the Eighth Avenue Line. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since there is only one Jay Street-Borough Hall, then Jay Street–Borough Hall (New York City Subway) is the right title. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I find awkwrd? Why do stations along the IND Fulton say Eighth Avenue? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a list in a subpage of this project documenting what the exit signs say on the various lines. --NE2 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE2: West 4th upper level says 8 Av, lower level says 6 Av. Jay Street says 8 Av I believe, but it serves both the IND Sixth Avenue Line and IND Eighth Avenue Line. The important thing is, there is only one West 4 St station and one Jay St station, so there's no problem.

Imdanumber1: The IND's original idea was to designate one huge line through Manhattan and Brooklyn, including the modern 8 Av Line and the Fulton St subway, as simply the "Eighth Avenue Subway". This is the same idea that it had for 6 Av/Culver, and that the BMT had for Broadway/4 Av. However, the Fulton Street Line was built and opened after the 8 Av Line, so we'll consider it separate. The MTA also considers it separate in newer literature, I believe.

All: Let's not get too crazy here. I don't mean to make emergency exit signs a source or a topic of interest. I'm just using it in the Seventh Avenue case as a sort of "tiebreaker" to decide on a line designation. I can currently think of just one other case in which this applies: the two DeKalb Avenue stations. One is clearly on the BMT Canarsie Line. The other is not clear at all; I labeled it as BMT Broadway Line because of the exit signs.

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the MTA definitely uses "Fulton Street Line" in Brooklyn. We should probably do a better job of referencing the line names. --NE2 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "a better job"? As far as I know, articles for stations under Fulton Street are titled "IND Fulton Street Line", not "IND Eighth Avenue Line". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better job at referencing in the articles about the lines. --NE2 04:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,... pretty funny, Larry. :D --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. We already refer to line names in the articles, I think. Cn you clarify? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure feels like a long long time ago… damn, I've been in this project for a long time :P … and NE2, I'm pretty sure that nearly all articles reference their lines adequately, in both the infobox and the opening paragraph. Could you provide an example of an article which does this poorly? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about citing reliable sources for the names and extents of the lines, probably from MTA literature or newspaper articles. --NE2 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]