Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Coin

How can this coin be from the 20th century when NY transit authority was established later than that?

Quote: "An NYCTA token from the mid-20th century". Mid 21th maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.184.155 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean...the article says that the "New York City Transit Authority was created in July 1953," which is pretty clearly in the middle of the 20th century. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the questioner is confused as to the common way centuries are counted. The common "Anno Domini" calendar evolved from one created by a medieval Christian monk who numbered dates starting with the first year after the day on which he thought Jesus was born, e.g., "the first day of the sixth month of the 300th year of our Lord." Today we would write that date either as 6/1/300 or 1/6/300 or 300/06/01. Note that is in the last year of the third century. This system replaced the older convention of numbering dates after the day a monarch was crowned, such as the "the first day of the fourth month of the fifth year of the reign of Hadrian." The 20th century after the day Jesus had been thought to be born began 1/1/1901 and ended 12/31/ 2000. Btm1 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Station Names

After looking at the official NYCS website, it appears that the "official" station names don't have ordinal indicators (e.g. "st", "nd", "rd" & "th"). Why is it that this page and the rest of the NYCS pages use them? And would it be a good idea to change the article names and content to match official standards? Cassius1213 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention page of the WikiProject:NYCPT, we add ordinal indicators and spell out numerical names less than "10th". Acps110 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if we wanted to change it now (not that I am even remotely in favor of this), it would entail updates to hundreds of articles, comprising thousands (probably tens of thousands) of individual references. At the end, the substantive content would be no better than it is now. If there's anyone around who actually has that much time and energy to contribute, I can supply a long list of projects that would actually improve the subway articles, rather than just renaming them. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Acrhitecture and vertical structure

As far as I can see there is essentially no information about the vertical structure of the NYC Subway system. In the novel Reliquary (Preston & Child) it is mentioned that the subway system has a very complex vertical structure of about twelve depth levels. Furthermore, it is said that there were abandoned tunnels, the so-called Astor tunnels, from the late 19th century at about 100 m (330 ft) below the surface that have once been used by very rich people to avoid the overcrowded ordinary subway. The German WP article about this novel mentions that the informations about the tunnel system given in the book are very close to reality, and that even these Astor tunnels do really exist.

Information about these aspects would be a good addition to this article.--SiriusB (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Record for riding entire system

Three news articles discuss various attempts to ride the entire subway system in the shortest amount of time possible. Wondering if this notable enough to include in the article. I'm on the fence. Sources are as follows.

• "Straphangers Break Record For Fastest Subway System Ride". NY1. August 24, 2006. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
• "Queens Man And Five Friends Break Subway Record". NY1. December 29, 2006. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
• Kadinsky, Sergey; Schapiro, Rich (January 22, 2009). "Math whizzes shoot to set record for traversing subway system". Daily News. Retrieved January 22, 2009.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you could add that to the end of the Overview section as a brief mention, like "The shortest time required to travel through the entire revenue system is xx held by...<ref>1 NY1 article</ref> What not to do is to add it into a trivia section. -Herenthere (Talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Subway Challenge, which has to be revisited to add additional references. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Subway Map Image

The subway map image on the right column of the page is very old, I do not know how to change it. Has someone considered this issue? It's outdated by almost ten years and omits the Z and W lines (although they are both, I believe, proposed for removal of service which I suppose is another unaddressed issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amleth (talk • contribs) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety and Security

The safety and security paragraph only addresses security, not safety. In light of recent accidents in Washington D.C. Metro subway, it would be nice to have a discussion of the safety record of this older, lower technology, subway system. Btm1 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] is a timeline of several accidents. Stan Fischler's The Subway also has a major section on accidents. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Safety and security must be distinguished better, e.g. safety against system internal hazards (overspeeding, interlocking failures etc.) and security against external hazards (crime, suicides, storms etc.) --User:sbrgc 18:45, 19 Nov 2011 (CET)

G Service

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#G Service for centralized discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Icons in article test

I noticed that the train icons (for example, ), are used inline in the article text throughout. Per MOS:ICON I believe these should be removed from the mainline text. Unless there are signficant objections I'll go ahead and remove them within the next day or two. Comments are, of course, welcome. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of us at WikiProject New York City Public Transportation have been trying to keep the article clear of those pesky route bullets. Multiple IPs keep adding them back. Go right ahead and fix them. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the above true for image captions too? Vcohen (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they can be used in tables, image captions, infoboxes, and other supporting structure. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be used in image captions. Image captions are running text, and so WP:MOSICON still applies. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical resource

Just found an interesting historical resource: the 1907 World Almanac, available in its entirety on Google Books. It has an article on the NY subways that I discovered while searching for books mentioning Seventh Avenue. See [2] --ScottyBerg (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarify, please

In the period between 1990 and 2003 343 subway-related deaths have been registered on a citywide total of 7.394 (4.6%). - number of what is 7.394? Deaths in general, or transport-related? Or overall number of accidents in the subway?--Microcell (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I created that section, let me look into it tomorrow. For now, I suspect the number meant citywide transport-related deaths. Pim Rijkee (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is subway-related suicides vs total suicides in NYC during the period of 1990 to 2003. I double checked the linked source before rewriting it. I must admit that I'm a bit surprised (pleasantly, I guess) that, in a city of 8 million residents, over a doze-plus years there were a relatively small number of suicides overall. Part of the confusion may hav stemmed from the use of a dot instead of a comma as a seperator between the thousands and hundreds place; commas are standard in English, where dots are used for decimal points. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the double checking Oknazevad. My bad with the punctuation, Dutch system uses the dot/comma the other way around. Pim Rijkee (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking?

The article was edited supposedly to combat overrlinking. That may be true, but I have an issue. In here (the comment "Restrooms: who-t-f is going to click on these here?" is funny just because the restrooms here are generally f'ed up), there are few open restrooms relative to the system, 77 stations out of 468/423 [3]. I am not thrilled with the section as it is, but I think the links serve the purpose of knowing where the restrooms are. The acknowledgment of restrooms may be better served in the subarticles of List of New York City Subway stations, but for now, I believe the links are appropriate. Speaking of, some of those stations are ambiguous, DeKalb Avenue and Kings Highway, for instance. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, what can I say? WP is not a directory, and it certainly isn't here to help people find restroom facilities. It's probably overdoing it by listing them, but linking to the articles too seems to be taking linking practices really to an extreme? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned Tunnels/Stations

I apologize if I'm just blind, but is there any coverage of abandoned tunnels in the New York City Subway system and their history? For example, I know that the Court Street station in Brooklyn was converted to a museum, and when riding I occasionally see dark platforms, but that's all I know. I also seem to recall a story from several years ago mentioning an entire community of people living in the abandoned tunnels from NYCs previous attempts at subways - true/fiction? Is there a page on this? If so, it would be great if a link within this article pointed to it - or am I just really blind? Lexlex (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd like to know myself. I don't think there are any such articles, and there should be. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is such an article. See List of closed New York City Subway stations. I believe it is linked on the main New York City Subway navbox. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's a great article too, thanks. You know, I always tell people that my greatest frustration about Wikipedia is that the area I am most interested in has already been saturated by people who are obviously experts in the field. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's still a lot of room for improvement. There are no WP:NYCPT articles higher than good article quality (and those four are NJT stations). What's lacking in the majority of articles in the project is inline citations. So don't think that you can't contribute to the NYCPT articles if you think they can be better. Strive for a featured article or a featured list. I am not an expert as others may be and I learn as I edit articles. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Best-selling fiction RELIQUARY by Preston and Child relies on the legend of an opulent abondoned line and station. Based on THE MOLE PEOPLE by Jennifer Toth. Could be a corrupted account of City Hall station, long abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.108.202 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird article observation

Am I the only one that finds it odd that the article has two shots of elevated portions of the system as the lead infobox images? I think it paints a misleading image of the system. I do like that one is Division A and the other Division B, that makes it more complete. One elevated image and one underground image would do the same. Any good images of a train underground floating around Commons that we could swap into the lead images? oknazevad (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but how would you be able to show an entire train in an underground station, not unless it's one of the S shuttle trains? What do you think of File:NYCSub 7 Vernon Jackson 3.jpg? Tinlinkin (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't neccessarily think we need a full train in the underground station shot. Frankly, the images of a full train don't actually add any information, as the back end of the train is so far away that they lose too much detail. The front of the train is enough. The 7 train shot you linked to is along the idea of what I was thinking, but if we have one with a non-blurred train, it'd be perfect. oknazevad (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to include above ground and under ground shots. Having said that, I view it as a requirement to show both IRT and BMT/IND sized equipment in the infobox. Feel free to change it to any high quality image but please make sure it includes both IRT and BMT/IND sized trains. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See, I'd say the opposite was the conditions I would call required. As the majority of the system is underground, and the name implies that status, showing an underground image in the lead seems a requirement. Meanwhile, while the display of both a Division A and Division B train is useful, without a good frame of reference to provide scale, both wind up looking more alike than not.

Anyway, my intention is, if someone can find a good quality underground image, I would swap that division only. In other words, if the image is a Division B image, that would be the one swapped out, while the elevated Division A would remain, leaving one elevated and one underground picture, with one Div A and one Div B. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I like that idea! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use images from other articles? If so, I nominate this picture (not by me)[bigger, of course. A 200-px thumbnail would be preferable].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Level Crossing (talk • contribs)

An R160A E train at 42nd Street – PABT

Perfect. I think I'll make the switch. (PS, don't forget to sign.) oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Level Crossing (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Paypass trial subtopic

I need a proofread of my addition to the Paypass trial subtopic I made earlier today. I would like you to edit and make it look better that part of the New York City Subway subject. If you think you can improve its look and text, be my guest to change whatever that needs changing. Thanks. Rockies77 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading off to bed right now, but I'll be glad to look at this tomorrow. Cheers! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Above text copied from User talk:Acps110. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to above: I have made some copy-edits to that section as you requested. Specifically, I changed some of the links to where the trial is taking place. I also reworded the second-person "you" statement per WP:YOU.

I added a {{When}} tag to the previous trial, because that sentence is ambiguous as to when it was extended and when it ended. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Restrooms

The 129 number of bathrooms needs to be changed. It's an old number and most of all the articles I've read say that 60 of the 129 have been closed. So that's only 69 bathrooms. But I bet it's a smaller number than that. The paragraph reads like there's a lot of bathrooms because whoever wrote it lists a number of bathrooms and it ends up sounding like they're all over the place even though it starts off saying they're "rare". Does anyone know how to get the real number of bathrooms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the MTA, along with the rest of our Wonderful State, that number will never be made public, and there's a good chance that they don't even know how many restrooms are in operable condition. The MTA should do what Transport for London does-create a special map that lists all restroom locations, but as we know, that will never be done. Back on topic, I would not be surprised at all if there were fewer than 75 restrooms in operable condition at any given time. And no, I don't think there is a way to find the number of restrooms. Coasterlover1994 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The MTA seems to have been contracting recently for private operations to maintain and control access to restrooms in some stations. Times Square is one such; the restrooms are located right next to the record store on the Shuttle mezzanine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.34.16 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York City Subway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article falls short of the good article criteria. The main issue is the lack of proper referencing; in average perhaps half the article is not referenced at the moment. There are a number of other issues as well:

• The length of the lead is not in proportion to the length of the article. Long article are expected to have long leads.
• Y The sentence "It is one of the four systems, with PATH, parts of the Chicago 'L', and PATCO to offer service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." is vague and directly untrue. For instance, the Copenhagen Metro also has 24-hour services, and the lead fails to mention that the four systems in question are the four in the US.
• The lead does not summarize the article, and the second paragraph tends to focus on trivialities and almost talks more about other systems than the one in question.
• The article is very long. While the exact length of the article can be discussed, I have a hard time seeing this length as acceptable.
• With that being said, there is a lot of inefficient writing, where a lot of words are being used to say very little. An example of this is the section "lines and routes".
• Y There should not be an overview section. The lead is to function as the overview, while the body is to contain information in relevant sections.
• Y Placing "New York City Subway nomenclature" as a {{main}} under routes and lines is wrong.
• The sentence 'Many rapid transit systems run relatively static routings, so that a train "line" is more or less synonymous with a train "route".' is very vague, as it is not clear to the reader what a route and line mean, as they are often used interchangeably in rail terminology. Here, the third paragraph should be first.
• Y Don't place {{main}} at the end of sections.
• Avoid single-sentence and other short paragraphs.
• Images are placed so they 'sandwich" each other (place directly beside each other on the right and the left sides).
• The article has maintenance and {{cn}} tags.
• Quoting the regulations (regarding photography) is a waste of space. Try to say things in as few words as possible (but of course as many as necessary).

This is an incomplete list of issues, but shows a good starting place. The article is in need of a very thorough copyedit, a partial restructuring of information and a full referencing before being suitable as a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed "New York City Subway nomenclature as a {{main}}" and "Don't place {{main}} at the end of sections." Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"The sentence "It is one of the four systems, with PATH, parts of the Chicago 'L', and PATCO to offer service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." is vague and directly untrue. For instance, the Copenhagen Metro also has 24-hour services, and the lead fails to mention that the four systems in question are the four in the US." was already fixed. Philroc (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed "There should not be an overview section. The lead is to function as the overview, while the body is to contain information in relevant sections.". I cut all of the "Overview" section, deleted the section, and then put that into the lead as the second paragraph, instead of the old second paragraph, which mainly focused of trivial facts, like Arsenikk said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on GA issues

Whilst I might take issue with one or two of Arsenikk's points, on the whole I agree that the article is nowhere near close to being GA.

The problem, which infects many of the rail and subway articles, is that it is written mostly by railfans, who tend to throw in a lot of details that would quickly lose the average reader. The article is like a basement that hasn't been cleaned in many years, with a huge accumulation of material in no particular order. It is also poorly sourced, containing many statements that are likely true, but that one would be hard pressed to "prove" if asked by a skeptical reviewer.

Getting the article up to GA quality would be a very big job, given the complexity of the subject. Marc Shepherd (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing at all with Marc Shehperd, I would almost suggest writing this article from scratch if GA or FA was wanted. With so few references as it has (particularly in the history section), it would be necessary to find everything in a source. Somewhat more time-consuming, but essentially what I do when bringing existing "cluttered" articles up to GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper name?

In this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Growing_abuse_of_WP:DASH_out-of-context_and_as_if_Holy_Writ, the capitalization of "Subway" in this article's title was brought up as an example of how we respect usage of proper names and such. User:oknazevad said, "Just as an FYI, New York City Subway is capitalized as a proper noun," which was based on the title on his MTA New York City Subway map (presumably the official one like here). Has this been discussed here before? I'd be interesting in knowing if there's any good evidence of this being an official or proper name; in books, it appears to be seldom capitalized, except in book titles and section titles (and map titles). Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is in the first archive, from way back in 2004. oknazevad (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, the reason it's often misused may stem from the history of the system as originally three separate systems. Before consolidation in 1940, the proper names were Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT), Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit (BMT), and the Independent Subway System (IND). At that time, the lowercase "subway" was merely descriptive, and the old usage just persists, even 70 years later. Doesn't change that it's now one system and a proper noun, but may explain the disconnect.oknazevad (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the archive discussion about capitalization of Subway. Just a repeat of your observation, What I mean by "full and proper" is that if you look at the name on the top of the official subway map, it is called the MTA New York City Subway. But as I pointed out, the mta.info web site, "The Metropolitan Transit Authority's official site for the subways of New York City", doesn't call it that, capitalized, except in titles as on your map (search). Here, for example, they talk about "owner and operator of all New York City subway and elevated lines", and nowhere do they mention the so-called offical proper name. Did anyone else support the interpretation that it's a "proper name"? None that I see there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I remember, that was more about the inclusion of "City" in the title (before that it was at New York Subway, which remains a redirect), The capital "S" was already in "Subway". Frankly, I don't think its something to worry about. At the very least, the number of pages that would have to be changed makes it best just to leave it. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CAPS says, "Convention: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." I don't think it's much trouble to change, since a move automatically makes a redirect if needed (although in this case, since the alternate title already exists as a redirect that has been editted, we'd need an admin to do the move, which would probably mean doing a move proposal/discussion first). I was just wondering if there's any evidence, or prior discussion, for it being a proper noun. Sounds like not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is it's not just this page; there's dozens of pages that include "New York City Subway" in the title, such as the pages on stations (there's an article for every single station in the system), lines, routes (not the same thing here) and many others. All of which has been well coordinated by the New York City public transportation Wikiproject. If there was a real issue with the use of a capital, someone would have made a comment about it in the six-plus years since I made that comment. (My God, I can't believe I've been here for over six years!) If you really want to examine this, then the project talk page (which gets tons more traffic than here) is the place to bring it up. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see many, but thanks for the pointer. I posted a follow-up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Proper names?. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved your question to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Proper names? main project talk page, as that subpage hasn't had a comment since 2007, and is less likely to be seen, largely due to the settlement of the station naming convention. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find that one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(6) and <6> is labeled as Lexington Avenue Local/Express

We all know that this is not true: that the <6> operates local on the Lexington Avenue Line. How can this be changed?

For now, I've changed it to Lexington Avenue Local / Pelham Express. Level Crossing (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 17 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

New York City Subway → New York City subway — Evidence in books clearly suggests that this is not usually treated as a proper name; nothing on the operator's website (except for the title on a map, perhaps) suggests that it is the actual name of the system. So we shouldn't capitalize Subway.--Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected mta.info URL in the nom. DMacks (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom, having heard no objections at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#Proper_names.3F. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per MTA's own usage of this exact phrase in prose to mean the formal system.[4] Note I'm not swayed by other publications' use in titles (that's a MOS issue in their publications) or generic descriptions in which "subway" is listed as one of several modes or with words in different order. DMacks (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the MTA themselves are the ones who seem to use the capital letter, namely on the Map, on signs, and the trains themselves. I think the preponderance of evidence is that they do capitalize it more often than not. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Capitalization in titles and logos shows nothing. The sentence that DMacks linked at mta.info, on the other hand, shows how the operators refer to their specific system in prose: "The New York City subway has 468 stations serving 24 subway lines – more than any other system in the world." Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support move. Appears supported by the evidence. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons listed in the above discussion. This is a specific, individual system, not a generic noun. And the number of templates, etc that would break, plus additional moves required would be extreme. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't find the list of reasons that you refer to; can you repeat or link it here? Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I already summarized them.oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, The entire title is a proper name, per usage by the MTA. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The evidence presented above by DMacks and my me says otherwise. What's yours? Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The Official MTA map says "MTA New York City Subway". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as Subway is used on trains, and the official map of the subway. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Change to strong oppose per the sheer number of other articles that would have to be renamed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting that you haven't actually capitalized "subway" even in your own "oppose" vote  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment – the capitalization of the map title has been stipulated already. But titles don't serve as evidence of what is a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a quick scan through the web bears out the nominator's assertion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral - But I would like to point out that if this passes, there are fifteen other articles that should also be moved [5], more than fourteen hundred incoming links to this article from Mainspace alone that should have the redirect bypassed, and goodness knows how many unlinked usages of the current capitilization out there to fix. Make sure your AutoWikiBrowsers are ready for the massive task you're undertaking! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. One of the reasons I oppose. Plus it would require completely redoing the naming conventions of the NYPT Wikiproject. It's not like the project participants have gotten it all wrong all this time. oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No harm to have redirects or bypass them when someone gets around to it (there are miles of wiki-gnome work to be done!). Regarding whether WP:NYPT got it wrong, that's exactly what this wider discussion is attempting to shed light on, and of course they are welcome to contribute their reasoning for it being the way it is. Projects are within wikipedia, not totally independent to set WP-contradictory rules especially if WP in general calls them on it. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's much more than the 15 other articles, there's at least 24 (subway services) and potentially even more (cars, etc.). Support move, but somebody must create a bot! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A bot for just 1 task? I don't know... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The page moves are certainly WAY more than 15, they actually run into the hundreds! --Ashanda (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about the station complexes. I count about 200 pages that would have to be renamed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot tasks:

• Move pages (human-assisted)
• Mass find-and-replace (links and non-links, except file links, automated)

I would think there are at least a couple thousand edits to be made, given that each of the pages to be moved needs to have its links changed to. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm, maybe we could find an already approved bot to do these tasks. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 14:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my (vast) underestimate on page moves! And to add to this tremendous heap of potential work, someone would also have to bring up twenty-odd Categories at WP:CFD for this discussion to happen all over again! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Thousands of find.2Freplace edits may be needed. The CFD's can just go through WP:CFDS. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't worry about the technical considerations. Please just stick to discussion about "what is best", which is more correct - and if consensus is established, actually making changes is a separate consideration. Train2104, re the bot request - I'll put a 'hold' note there; please update the page when a consensus has been reached; from the above, I'd say some further discussion is required, before it is clear the change is supported. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per usage (see logo). If New York City Subway is not the proper name for the system, what is it? (not a rhetorical question). — AjaxSmack 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer (or at least my position, which appears to match the reasoning of other "support"s) is that there may be a correct name and even officially used by the MTA but it's not a proper noun ("NYC" is the description or specific example of the generic term "subway"). Similar might be "the Wikipedia website". DMacks (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, "the Wikipedia website"'s name is Wikipedia. And "the New York City subway"'s name is New York City Subway. If it's a name (and not merely a description) of of a specific entity, that is ipso facto its proper name. — AjaxSmack 20:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that it isn't more than a description, otherwise MTA would capitalize in in their prose. DMacks (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, back to my original question, what is the proper name of the system? Methinks MTA has a deficit of copy editors. — AjaxSmack 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The "correct" name, if it indeed has one, is not necessarily a "proper" name. Many things are like that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with [User:DMacks] line of thinking is that "Wikipedia" alone is still a noun describing the same thing "New York City" alone is a noun that describes something else. It's use in the descriptive term "New York City subway" is an adjectival phrase; in that phrase, it's describing a subway located in New York City. And, remember there's more than one. Not only must one remeber the Port Authority Trans-Hudson railroad, but "subway" can and often is used as a generic descriptor if any of the underground lines, such as the Second Avenue Subway. As a whole system, "New York City Subway" remains the proper name. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine if true, but is there evidence that that's a proper name? I don't think you can infer anything from titles on maps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Seriously? Subway, in the context here, is a proper noun. We don't go calling it the "London underground" or the "Paris metro" because metro and underground, while being descriptive nouns, are proper nouns, part of the name itself. People call it the "New York City Subway", not the subway of New York City or New York City's subway. Justin Tokke (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that "Paris Metro" and "London Underground" are proper names. But nobody has found corresponding evidence for "New York City Subway". For example, in books: [6], [7], [8]. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I think we all agree that the move, the title case, just depends on whether "New York City Subway" is a "proper name". But the people who oppose the move have so far offered only opinions, plus a sighting of "New York City Subway" as a map title, and a "New York City Subway" logo on a subway-car. The evidence against it being a proper name is much stronger: the official operator's site, mta.info, uses it that way, with lower-case subway, and a great majority of books do, too. So, lacking evidence to oppose the move, why not just close this and move it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. There is clearly no consensus for the move, so the default is to keep it as is. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't a vote...conclusion rests on strength of arguments, not whether there are more or louder statements that are not as well based on sitewide guidelines. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The "map" etc. arguments are incredibly weak, and there is no evidence that "New York City Subways" is a formal title. If I create a map of my house and call it "ScottyBerg's House," that does not mean that the proper usage for my house in other contexts is "my House." It just means that when people draw up maps they capitalize. Same with the subway maps and usage on the sides of trains. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The problem with the Google n-gram given as the main evidence here is that it doesn't differentiate based on context. Phrases such as "New York City subway trains" and "New York City subway muggings" will be much more commonly used than a proper noun to refer to the system in its entirety. So to try to find instances when the system's name is being referred to, I modified the search. Using the possessive: Neither the 's nor the of the forms yielded any results. Using the definite article yielded more interesting results. The recent trend in the yellow line - correlating to about the time Wikipedia came on the scene - is interesting in itself. What does it mean? It all still leaves out context, so I leave the debate to you. Ashanda (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. Based on the ngram data, perhaps another article should also be re-named? Ashanda (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  We did discuss the issue a bit already; the n-gram data is just suggestive, and it's a good idea to follow up and sample the actual hits to get an idea about typical contexts; I did some of that. I don't get your point on the New York City article. It's already in agreement with the usage stats that you linked, is it not? Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Good catch! I think I had my eyes crossed on the NYC data, sorry! But I stand by what I said before and I don't see where the applicability of the Google data was discussed before. Ashanda (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misremembered; I'm not finding it now. Anyway, I did look at a lot of book snippets, so see if Subway was capitalized in some contexts and not in others, and the main distinguishing context I found was titles, which accounted for most of the caps. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't make sense of the statistical evidence, but in ordinary usage the MTA uses lowercase. See [9]. The newspaper of record, the New York Times, similarly uses lowercase, and is a stickler for propriety. We all love the subways or we wouldn't be editing this article, but we need to face facts on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• STRONGLY Oppose Firstly, to get this out of the way, the mta page that the OP linked to is full of errors, such as claiming that the A line is the world's longest subway line. as much as we'd like it to be it's not.

All uses in the actual system placed by the MTA; signs, maps and equipment use the capitalization. Which holds more water in the real world, the author of some book who has no affilation with the powers that be at 350 Madison Ave, or what said powers plasters all over their trains? people tend to make changes, be it thiey're lazy, don't know or just don't care. the proper spelling of Metro-North has the hyphen, most people when they write just say "Metro North".

[[10]] is the offical logo of the system. It is attached to almost 8,000 pieces of rolling stock, both passenger carrying and retired and work equipment. It's Subway. If it's not broken, don't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metropod (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See my "ScottyBerg's House" analogy above. Please cite examples of the MTA referring to the subway system as "New York City Subways" anyplace other than the title of maps and its logo. Please cite articles in reliable sources that do the same. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are refusing to accpet the catial s even though I provided the offical logo of the system as designed and designated by the systems owner and it's opperator simply becuase I have no articles. that is the lamest excuse I've ever head. The MTA always seems to prefer working in New York City Transit and avoid clling the subway by name. Seriously, is this even worth our time? the page has used capital S from the get go, and you decided NOW that what kind of S is used is a pressing issue. what ever happened to leaving well enough alone? i'm also active on Wikiproject tokusatsu, which is all about Japanese live action superhero shows (think power rangers). some one came allong and decided that every article should have been renamed becuase they felt thier translations were better than the rest of us. that's all this really is and from a normal person's persective, kinda stuipid.Metropod (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. THE source on this should be the MTA and its clear by their logo that it is "New York City Subway." Agreed also that the MTA likes to avoid that name in favor of the larger "New York City Transit" group. BTW, so far, I see no consensus here, so it should remain as is. Justin Tokke (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If the mta is the source, then why don't you go with the use on their website, where they put subway in lower case? In the How to Ride the Subway page, they say "The New York City subway has 468 stations serving 24 subway lines." Can you find any place that they capitalize it in a sentence? Or you'll take titles and logos to imply proper names? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

you have oviously not spent enough time on MTA.info, otherwise you'd know they are a joke if there ever was one. they once had 45th Rd-Courthouse Square written with the 4 and 5 train logos [(4)(5)th Rd]. I'm not talking about the web site, I'm talking what is written on the side of the dam trains. Metropod (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I haven't look at MTA much. If we ignore them, then what's left but books? Maybe scholarly papers? Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking?! Ignore the very organization that runs the NYCS? Justin Tokke (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was pretty much joking; or just hypothetically going with Metropod's suggestion. I suggest we respect the capitalization that the MTA uses in their web page sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You want to respect the wording on a web site that consistently posts coflicting service disruptions, which can also include misstakes that anyone else blessed with the gift of sight would know is wrong. Versis the offical logo, the one that 5 million people see every day? The one that's been in use longer than MTA.info has been around? do you really have nothing better to do?Metropod (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we want to use the wording for purposes of prose that they use in prose...we're not discussing what wikipedia should use in the logo we use for them or when describing a picture of a train sign. DMacks (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NYC subway-4D.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:NYC subway-4D.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 18, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A transit map of the New York City Subway, one of the oldest and most extensive public transportation systems in the world. Operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York, it has 468 stations in operation on 209 mi (337 km) of routes, with 842 miles (1,355 km) of track. It is the busiest rapid transit rail system by annual ridership in the Western Hemisphere, and fifth busiest in the world. Its stations are located throughout the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Staten Island has its own rail line which is not part of the system, but is included in the map as well.Map: CountZ

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Section describing express, local, and skip-stop service?

The concept of express, local, and skip-stop service is confusing to many tourists and newcomers; mainly because it does not exist (or exists on a very limited scale) in most other subways across the globe. Currently, the only place in the article that describes these three types of services in any significant detail is one paragraph in 'Overview'; even this paragraph contains unnecessary information (to a newcomer) about the track configuration used on express lines.

While I know that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, I think that there should be a section (most likely a subsection of 'Lines and Routes') about the different types of services and the differences between them.

Level Crossing (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the complexity of which services do what and when, it is currently broken down by line and by service. Please understand the difference between a line and a service. A line is the physical railroad and number of tracks, a service is the train routing via that physical railroad. Each line has a table that lists which services stop at each station with small bullets explaining the times. Each service has a similar table with an overview. For example, the BMT Broadway Line's stations and services are listed here, and the N train's list of stops is here. The N train's overview is here.

Due to track layouts, only some services are fully local, making all stops (1, 6, 7, C, G, L, M, R). All other services (2, 3, 4, 5, <6>, <7>, A, B, D, E, F, J, N, Q, Z) have a combination of express and local service. This varies by time of day.

Track layout is very important for figuring out what is local and what is express, especially on four track lines. The center tracks are generally the expresses and the outer tracks are generally the locals.

A graphical version is here. It shows two colored lines for each trunk line in Manhattan indicating express and local service. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I know what express and local services are; others don't. And there is no description in the article about what they are, besides 'find them on the middle tracks'. This isn't really helpful to a newcomer. I was thinking of inserting something like

"New York has a unique system of express and local trains. Local trains stop at every station along their line, while express trains only stop at major transfer stations and destinations. A third type of service is skip-stop, which only operates during rush hours on the J and Z lines. Skip-stop trains stop at alternate minor stations, and all trains stop at major stations".

Hopefully you see what I mean here.

Level Crossing (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

These explanations already exist in other articles, Express train and Skip-stop. IMHO, it's enough to provide links to them. Vcohen (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have taken some time to expand the section here about local and express services. I've also expanded the List of services article. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge Overview section into lead?

One of the criticisms of this article was that the lead is too short for such a lengthy article. At the same time, this article has an 'overview' section, which is just a collection of general facts about the subway (which the lead is supposed to be). My suggestion is to remove the overview section and move the information in it to the lead or any other place where it would fit.

Reactions?

Level Crossing (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, The lead is only supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. If a topic doesn't exist in the article it shouldn't be in the lead and vice versa. The Overview section was created to keep the History section from being first and overwhelming a first time reader. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that merger is inadvisable. But I think that a better section title can be found than "Overview." Maybe "System operations." ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Train intervals (2011/2012)

...could one of the New Yorkers please copy the train intervals table and update it to 2011/2012 schedule? Thanks so far. --User:sbrgc 21:03, 19 Nov 2011 (CET)

I've moved it to the List of New York City Subway services. It is a better fit there. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A Featured Article Before?

I read that this subject was nominated for the designation of "Featured Article" before, but it was rejected in the end. Why did it occur? Has it improved somewhat since then or is there more work needed, to re-nominate the New York City Subway topic for the title again? Rockies77 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Older Trains

I think this page should have photos of older subway cars (used on the A, B, C, D, G, R, 1, 3, 7 and other lines), not only the newer ones used on the 2, 4, 5, 6, N, Q, E, F, M, L and other lines. The current photos do not accurately show what the NYC Subway looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.138.244 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2012 February 8‎

Wikipedia is not the news. The trains that are shown on this page are examples, not all inclusive of every train. If you want to see every train, there is a separate article for that, New York City Subway rolling stock.

One more thing, everything you listed is not a line. Those are services or trains. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cellular network

In my opinion, article need information about work cellular network in subway. For example, in Russian Wikipedia in article "Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.8F_.D1.81.D0.B2.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8C_.D0.B8_.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.82) have part about "Cellular network and the Internet".

Part text (translate): "Cellular network covered most of the stations of the Moscow subway. It also provided many of the bond transitions, bending and moving escalator. However, the availability of coverage and signal strength vary widely, depending on the particular station (movement), as well as the cellular operator."

Also Russian Wikipedia have special article "Cellular network in Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5), it's information about each mobile network operator and every station.

Sorry for my English.

AndreyKovalevsky (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy

We should start a new section about the impact of Hurricane Sandy. Arguably the most damaging event in the 108 history of the subway. Best if people in the know watch for random posts and pics and keep the information tight, relevant, and with a minimum of hyperbole. Buzzm (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The impact page of Hurricane Sandy should cover it. No need for a separate section for every natural disaster that occurs.--iGeMiNix 22:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I will delete the fact that the Montague street tubes were discovered with serious cracks and leaks as this is false. It has been denied by the mta. The webpage on the recovery of the Montague tubes doesn't state this.VMIKEW (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Rapid Transit False Reference

The opening paragraph makes a reference to rapid transit systems in the US and lists the cable car system in San Francisco as being one. This is false, as the cable car system of San Francisco is not 'rapid'. In fact, the Wiki article for the same systems, found right in this paragraph, does not even list the cable car system as rapid either. The mass transit system of San Francisco includes many forms of transit, some 'rapid', including the cable car system. That system, however, is not 'rapid'.63.118.154.94 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is In the United States, five systems offer service 24 hours per day and 365 (or 366) days per year. It doesn't say rapid systems. Vcohen (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence to the paragraph clearly says "By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world;...". The semi-colon clearly indicates a continuous thought, so it's either misapplied or the subsequent sentence makes no logical sense in suddenly changing the subject from 'rapid transit' to anything else.Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no semicolon there. I separated the paragraphs to make it clearer. Vcohen (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I separated the paragraph, although simply breaking the paragraph seems like a nice way to simply massage the argument that it was poorly written to begin with. And yes, there was in fact a semi-colon there ("By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world;...")Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the current version of the article there are two paragraphs, one speaking about rapid transit rail systems and one about public transit systems. The semicolon is in the first one (not between them). The San-Francisco system is mentioned in the second one. Till here, do you agree with me? Vcohen (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You missed the pervious versions that did not include two paragraphs, instead having one non-sequitor separated by a semi-colon.Grammarcop1 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me that version? Vcohen (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still there: "By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world; the metro (subway) systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou record a higher annual ridership.[8]. Only now that the paragraph has been properly broken, it makes more sense.Grammarcop1 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a semicolon between the two sentences about rapid transit rail systems and public transit systems or a semicolon inside one of them? Vcohen (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-colon between two thoughts, which started as you read above, but further included something unrelated and irrelevant. I wish I knew how to show.Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the original text:

1. By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world
2. semicolon
3. the metro (subway) systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou record a higher annual ridership
4. period
5. In the United States, five systems offer service 24 hours per day and 365 (or 366) days per year: ... San Francisco Municipal Railway.

Later I emphasized this period by separating paragraphs, but even in the original version it was present. What you call "something unrelated and irrelevant" was after this period, not just semicolon. Vcohen (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Culver Express?

Mta.info now says:

Planned Work [F] Coney Island-bound trains run express from Jay St-MetroTech to Church Av

Weekend, 11:45 PM Fri to 5 AM Mon, Jan 11 - 14

Trains stop at 7 Av.

For service to Bergen, Carroll Sts, 4 Av-9 St, 15 St-Prospect Park and Fort Hamilton Pkwy, take the to 7 Av or Church Av [F] and transfer to a Jamaica-bound [F].

For service from these stations, take the to 7 Av or Jay St-MetroTech and transfer to a Coney Island-bound [F].

Alternate travel note: For service to 4 Av-9 St, transfer to the [R] at Jay St-MetroTech.

Notes: No [G] service at these stations during this time. Smith-9 Sts Station is closed for rehabilitation.

So, F train is temporaily running express on IND Culver Line --contradicts that article which says the express tracks are still useless. 218.22.21.3 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York City Subway/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I find that this article has not met the GA criteria, and I am failing the nomination at this time. This article continues to have several issues that were identified in the previous failed GAN on October 26, 2010.

As the previous GA reviewer noted:

• The lead is too short. Longer articles usually have longer lead sections. Furthermore, the lead section should summarize the key points from all of the article's sections, as per WP:LEAD. The lead section currently provides too much trivial detail that could be omitted or reworded.
• Quoting the regulation on photography is unnecessary.
• There are too many images on both sides, such that text is "sandwiched" between them. See WP:LAYIM.
• Please avoid single-sentence and short paragraphs.

Of course, this list isn't exhaustive, and I encourage you to read the previous GA review at Talk:New York City Subway/GA1. Additional comments of my own:

• Embedded lists should be avoided, as per WP:EMBED.
• Certain statements contain statistics but lack in-line citations. Examples include the final paragraph of "Entertainment" and second paragraph of "Rolling Stock".

Edge3 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Station Exits in Articles for Individual Stations

I'd like to put something up to a vote and I think this is the place it is likely to get the most attention. I'm often frustrated by the lack of information on the location of entrances and exits to subway stations in their articles on Wikipedia. When there is such information, as in the article about W 4th St, the information is often vague and confused. While I concede that, given the complexity of the system, making this information available might be a difficult undertaking, but still, this is useful, relevant information, and I would argue that it is just these sorts of difficulties (elucidating esoteric information from esoteric sources) that Wikipedia's crowdsourced model was designed to accomplish, and accomplishes most successfully. I would like us to vote on whether we'd be in favor of attempting to make exact information available in articles on all subway stations. I've already stated what I view as the arguments for and against. Obviously I'm in favor, so count my vote as a yes. Quodfui (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This place is better to get attention. Vcohen (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall performance? Longest transit times?

There is a debate in Toronto, where I live, over alternate plans for developing rapid transit. The NYC subway system is held up as a model for those who favour building a shorter length of underground heavy rail -- as opposed to building amore extensive network of light rail, which would be cheaper to build, because it would run at ground level in a separate right of way, where circumstances permitted.

I've visited Manhattan, which is very richly served by heavy rail lines. But how well served are riders in the outlying and/or less dense regions of NYC? I suspected the proponents of a subway-only rapid transit system were exagerrating and distorting the NYC subway's effectiveness -- based on the ubiquity of subways in very dense Manhattan.

In Brooklyn, The Bronx, Long Island, Staten Island, how many potential riders live too far from a station to be able to walk to a station?

How long does it take a rider to go from a destination at one side of the city to a destination at the other side of the city?

Are trains infrequent at the termini of the longer lines that stretch into the less dense regions?

How do riders coming to NYC from neighbouring cities get on to the NYC subway system? Do they have to ride in on commuter rail?

How convenient is it for a rider traveling from one location on the periphery to another location on the periphery? Do they have to travel all the way downtown to make the right transfers? So, if NYC were a clock, and they were at 1 o'clock, would they have to travel downtown to make the right transfers to head back out to to the less dense portion of 3 o'clock?

I hoped I could find the answers here. But the overall performance of the NYC subway isn't really addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You might get a better answer at the help desk, but I'll try to answer some of your questions. Yes, NYC's subway system, especially outside Manhattan, is roughly radial in topology. Only a one line, for instance, runs between Brooklyn and Queens without passing through Manhattan, for instance, and that does make it inconvenient to travel between places on the periphery of the system.

However, A) that doesn't mean that a subway system has to be that way, of course (the Paris Metro is a counterexample); B) the subway is supplemented by a very extensive bus system that includes routes that travel more directly between areas that are at the ends of different subway lines; and C) while you can argue about cause and effect, subway service is densest in places where population/businesses are densest.

Some areas outside Manhattan (particularly downtown Brooklyn) are even more densely served than most of Manhattan; some parts of Manhattan have very sparse coverage (particularly the far east side of the entire island, and the far west side in midtown and below). There are certainly areas where it's more convenient to take the bus to the subway than to walk; or where the subway is a significant bus ride away -- but those areas are among the most sparsely populated. I couldn't easily give you numbers on how many are unable to walk or have more than a 15-min bus ride to the subway -- you'd have to do some research.

Trains are more frequent in midtown than at the ends of lines because the lines combine as you approach the center and split to cover more area towards their ends, but during rush hour trains are pretty frequent (several per hour) even at the ends of most lines; in the wee hours, service is sparse (1-2 trains per hour)even at the most frequently visited stations in Manhattan, but service runs to nearly all stations all night long.

There are a few lines that take over an hour to travel from the end into Manhattan even on an express train, so traveling between distant areas of the outer boroughs can indeed take a very long time, but the vast majority of subway commutes are from a peripheral area towards the center or vice-versa -- comparatively very few people have a reason to travel through Manhattan to a different borough on a daily basis. That can change a bit on weekends when people visit friends who live in other parts of the city, but people tend to be in less of a rush then anyway.

In many parts of the city, the subway actually runs above-ground, but it is always grade-separated from automobile traffic -- either elevated or in cut-outs. This is very important because it means that the subway is never impacted by traffic, and especially during rush hour, but even mid-day it can be much faster to travel a few miles by subway than by car or taxi.

New York has few "neighboring cities" and a lot of suburbs. The nearest cities (as opposed to towns) are in New Jersey and Westchester. Some, like Hoboken, have subway-like service (the PATH) into Manhattan; others (Yonkers, Newark) share the suburban commuter rail via three systems -- New Jersey Transit, Metro North, and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) -- that each serve a different segment of the suburbs. All three commuter railroads run their tracks underground in Manhattan (and part of the outer boroughs), and above ground further from the city center.

Commuter rail service is extremely frequent and heavily used during rush hour and terminates in Midtown at major subway hubs -- commuters can switch to the subway without even going above ground, and for the LIRR at least, tickets for the subway and the commuter trains are sold at the same machines. A project (East Side Access) is under way to further improve those connections. Metro North and the LIRR also have some stops in the outer boroughs that provide fast direct service to midtown in 1-3 stops. Commuter rail service in the NY suburbs is arguably more thorough than the subway service available in the city proper of many North American cities.

A few other large cities are located at the further ends of the Metro-North and NJ Transit systems -- including New Haven and Trenton, and even Philadelphia. Faster service to those cities, and service to Boston and D.C., is available via long-distance rail (AmTrak).

Is the NY transit system perfect? By no means, and there are major improvements that could and would be made if we could start over again. But ridership numbers and even car ownership numbers give pretty strong evidence that it's pretty effective.

Hope that answers at least a few of your questions! -- Avocado (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning of Other Systems

Is there really a need to mention the nomenclature of other systems, such as said in this statement,This terminology is also used to a loose extent in the Taipei Metro, where trains run on different named "lines" that are part of colored "routes", and on the Washington Metro, where colored "lines" are part of lettered "routes". This article is only about the New York City Subway. By mentioning the nomenclature (or other facts) of other systems, it can go off topic of relating primarily to the New York City Subway. Since there are some editors who seem to be debating over this, please leave comments on this issue. Mysteryman557 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It is legitimate to say that the discussed system is similar to certain other systems in a certain regard. If this statement raises questions, we can rewrite it into a separate paragraph. Vcohen (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons with other systems are relevant when discussing superlatives. For example, saying that the NYC system has the most stations is useful. So is saying that it is the busiest in the US. If the NYC system were the only one in the world to use the "lines"/"routes" terminology, saying so might be relevant as well. But it isn't, so that isn't anything special. Why, then, should this article mention anything about the DC or Taipei metros? That's classic WP:TRIVIA. (Not to mention the fact that the whole paragraph is uncited, and that "loose" is totally meaningless (Taipei uses the same terminology, or it doesn't), but those are secondary weaknesses with the text.) Ylee (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

These are the only three systems that make the distinction. Also, the linked articles have citations—you can look at those. You can't remove a paragraph solely because the paragraph is tangential; the relation between the three systems is pointed out. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is legitimate to give examples of other systems with similarity. However, I do not see anything close to NYC subway in the Taipei and DC metros from the perspective of lines and routes. Perhaps, the preceding sentences should clearly communicate its uniqueness that:

"... A route (service) may utilize many named lines. For example, the R route operates along the IND Queens Boulevard Line as well as the BMT Broadway Line and the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. On the other hand, a named line may also serve many routes. For example, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line is used by the D, N and R routes."

Once the above point about NYC subway is established, then we can look at the Taipei and DC metros objectively whether there are similarities. In case of Taipei, the Red livery contain two lines (which are two services). These two services/lines are on a shared physical rail line. The shared physical rail lines in Taipei are not named, however. The Taipei network in a trunk/branch configuration is very typical in rapid transit and commuter rail. Searching through rail maps from many cities, you will see that trunk/branch configuration. In the case of DC, there are services that switch the physical rail lines (note the Blue, Yellow and Green). However, to my knowledge, those physical rail lines are not separately named like in NYC. A service switching to another "unnamed" physical rail lines like in DC case is quite common too. BART, Brussels Metro, and Oslo Metro are some examples. So, I think when mentioning Taipei and DC metros in this context, it will make readers more confused than helping because they are not really similar to NYC. Z22 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's legitimate—the NYC Subway makes that distinction as does the Taipei and Washington Metros. In Taipei, for example, the Nangang Route is part of the Blue Line, but not the other way around. Same thing with the J train—the BMT Jamaica Line is part of the J service, but the J is not part of the BMT Jamaica Line. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Station ridership

I notice that recent updates were made to the numbers for MTA Annual Subway Ridership, which required a lot of work editing every station. This process could be automated by creating a Template database to be read by those infobox parameters. Look at how {{TRTS ridership}} and {{TRTS ridership-rank}} are used. Note that if you don't use any punctuation, calculations can be made using those values. Everything could then be updated in one place. There should be some way to create one template of station names with multiple values and switch on the parameter required. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How fast will it work, regarding the fact that there are more than 400 stations in the NYC Subway? Vcohen (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Templates work immediately. Considering that there are 421 ranks that need to be updated, at about 1 station per minute, the ridership can be updated manually in about 7 man-hours. If a template for {{NYCS ridership}} is made, the the passenger count, the station ranking, and the pass-percent would all need to be put in. Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've collected the raw data at my MTA ridership data page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature49489/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of last Lead Paragraph

The Last lead paragraph in this article seems somewhat out of line... I t seems to be kind of odd, mentioning just two lines services? I think it should be removed. Thoughts?Staglit (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, so as a result, I removed it. Mysteryman557 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

disagree, because the 1/9 and D/Q trains formerly had this pattern, it isnt rare. 50.14.187.20 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So? That isn't point. I think it should be gone because it doesn't fit with the lead. Staglit (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

But we already describe local and express service. The J and Z are neither express nor local. 50.14.187.20 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes but I still don't think its necessary to add in every tiny detail and exception. Staglit (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we risk having an inaccurate lead. How about rewriting it to mention skips top but not the services themselves? 50.14.187.20 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats a good way to handle this I think.Staglit (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Announcements

Hello from the German Wikipedia. There is a question about the announcements on the subway in the German talk: de:Diskussion:New York City Subway#Ansagen. MB-one asks whether the announcements with the connections (e.g. "Transfer is available to the 8, X and Y trains.") are announced when the train is in the station or during the ride between two stations. Maybe somebody of you can answer that. --U-Bahnfreund (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@U-Bahnfreund:, the announcements are made right when the train enters the station in the newer type cars (i.e. R142 and newer), but the doors are still closed. For older cars (R68A and older), the announcements are made while the doors are opened in the station. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you for your answer --U-Bahnfreund (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Steel wheels, or pneumatic tires ?

See Rubber-tyred metro ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Crime section looks very similar to existing source

The lengthy section on crime looks very similar to the nycsubway.org articles about the 1970s and 1980s. I don't have sufficient time or knowledge of wiki definitions of plagiarism to fix the issue, but there are quite a few phrases that are just copied word-for-word. Apparently this has existed since Epicgenius's edits in April.

Some examples that I found in about 30 seconds: "To counteract a 60% jump in crime in 1982, a plan to have uniformed police officers ride the subway between 8pm and 4am was instituted." "Meanwhile, enterprising criminals would steal bus transfers from bus drivers and sell the transfers on the street for 50 cents." "On the IRT Pelham Line in 1980, a sharp rise in window-smashing on subway cars caused $2 million in damages; it spread to other lines during the course of the year. When the broken windows were discovered in trains that were still in service, they needed to be taken out of service, causing additional delays; in August 1980 alone, 775 vandalism-related delays were reported." Level Crossing (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I am working to remedy this, and so am paraphrasing the section entirely. As stated on my talk page, The text, as with other text in NYC Subway articles, is used with prior permission from the NYCSubway.org website ... but I have paraphrased it a little and also cited the website as a source. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned the section out. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Headways and other technical info

For being a hot topic especially in the past couple decades, it's surprising to see how much technical info is missing from [rapid] transit articles. When I first starting looking into the subject extensively, I was surprised to see that there are no reports of the top speed or the more relevant average speed of almost any line or system, even the newer ones in places like China where they are constantly touting new technology, high-speed rail, etc. I believe the lowest published headway on the subway is 2 minutes / 120 seconds on a single track, though when a train gets backed up they've been seen to run up to four (I've seen at least three) trains in a five minute period. B137 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for? Vcohen (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is kind of the format I was looking for. I already saw the general TPH figures for a few lines used as examples in the automation article. B137 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links

I'm concerned that the article has excessive external links, even accounting for the complexity and history of one of the world's largest subway systems. For example, I doubt that separate links are needed to the MTA's Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr pages, or that some of the "historical information" links cannot be incorporated into the article itself. Conifer (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Historical info can be moved to History of the New York City Subway. However, the social media links should probably stay because they are precisely about the article's subject. Epic Genius (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bernhard Goetz should be linked to this article

There's no mention of Bernhard Goetz in this article or even a link to his article. This seems like a major oversight in the crime section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxk3355 (talk • contribs)

That might not be appropriate here, but for sure in the History of the New York City Subway article, in which it is also not mentioned. B137 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Now it is mentioned in the other article. There should not be a mention in this article, as it is a relatively minor incident in the subway's history. Epic Genius (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello All

March 10, 2015 5:30 PM

Hi Everyone,

My name is Marco and I am a freshman at Santa Clara University. Over the last 5 months I have been working on a research paper that had to do with the construction of the subway. I would like to contribute to the community, and make my long hours of research live on. Please check out my additions and hopefully the information helps out the page.

Best,

Marco Gaspari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoanthonygaspari (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's showtime!

• Showtime (busking)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious photo of all

The fact that MTA has a Flickr photo stream that is licensed under CC had been a valuable resource to Wikipedia. I noticed that like almost all mass transit articles this one uses a makeshift homemade map which isn't bad. But then I noticed the Second Avenue Subway page uses a section of the legitimate map with the new line highlighted. It is from the MTA photo stream although it has been taken down but it has been on Wikipedia for two years. Well, they have the full map too which may be subject t copyright but it is their mistake because they put it in the public domain here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/9018373274/

B137 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not uploading it because I'm guessing that it is not a proper license on Flickr, where they simply set it and forget it for the entire photostream. But if you want to consider it an authentic official photostream, then it is effectively the primary source legitimately releasing the license. It doesn't include Hudson Yards anyway, but with the CC license it has it could be modified. B137 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, only the 2013 map is public domain. The MTA only waived copyright for that edition. The photostream is indeed authentic; a photographer named Patrick Cashin takes these photos for the MTA, who then puts it under their photostream. Epic Genius (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• The 2013 map is both uploaded and used. Look here. Vcohen (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason the map may seem not good enough to use on the main page is that it is relatively low resolution, even at full size you can barely make out the station names let alone the streets. Also it is out of date. The new map available as an inline image is larger and better resolution. Any chance they will release [ http://web.mta.info/maps/images/subway_2400x2867.jpg this? ] B137 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not likely, unless they upload it to Flickr every single time a new map is released. Epic Genius (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why in general transit agencies are so restrictive with their maps. Aren't they supposed to be public benefit entities? B137 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe to pay off the graphics designers? There are various reasons why even state government agencies permit copyright on their own works (but US government does not have copyright). Epic Genius (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York City Subway/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will get to this article in the coming days. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

1a. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

In the first sentence underneath the Rolling Stock section, the word "has" should be changed to "had." An updated statistic would be helpful too.

This has been dealt with

Language is pretty technical in the Safety section.

Is there anything left to do in this section? If so, what should I do?

Looks good to me now.

1b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

2a. Has an appropriate reference section:

2b. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

There are a lot of sections that need references. The most glaring example is the history section, particularly the first half of the section. The stations section also needs a lot of new references. The manual signaling subsection also needs references. Note that this list is not all-encompassing, in that more references are required in a variety of other places.

With regards to the existing sources, the sources are pretty reliable. There is also a lot of reliable sources, which is a positive thing. Sadly, even more references are needed in order to satisfy this criteria.

Source 207, titled "Citizens Crime Commission of New York City; Regional Plan Association (1986)", seems to be broken.

As of the active version at 10:04 pm EST, citations 35 and 195 appear to be broken.

They work for me

The links work, but there are a couple of error messages in the reference section of the article, for citation 35 and what is now citation 192, at 5:07 pm EST (it changed). The errors are described in the section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I dealt with those two links.

I will put tags next to the remaining paragraphs without references. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tags added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Me and another editor replaced those tags with references, and I got rid of one, which had absolutely no references except for pages, which copied from wikipedia

I added references for the tags you just added--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

More added. And thank you for catching my mistake. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I don't see the ones you have added since I dealt with them.

My bad. I did not see that you added the latest round of links. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As of 5:49 pm est, links 68 and 205 appear to have error messages in the reference section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed those two links and added others where I thought they were needed.

2c. No original research:

2d. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

3a. Major aspects:

3b. Focused (see summary style):

This article seems bloated to me. While I enjoyed reading certain sections, such as the history section, other sections seemed either too technical or irrelevant to be in the article. I am worried that few people would read the entire article. Whether that is the point of a Wikipedia article is up for debate of course. Specific sections include:

Modernization. The section has a lot of new developments, some of which may not be important enough for an article on the subway system.

What should I do with this information? Would you suggest splitting this information off? I don't think it should be gotten rid of.

I will be honest. I am not certain what to do with it either. In cases of uncertainty, I usually stick with the status quo. In this case, the section can stay; it is not too long anyway. That also does it for length issues. Roughly 58KB of readable prose is a bit long, but not too long. I would try to keep the article size at around this level, going into the future. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Safety and Security, particularly the crime subsection which is partly discussed in the history section. In my opinion, the whole subsection should be condensed to one or two paragraphs and then be placed into the history section. The history section could use some more length, and the crime subsection is just too big. Note that there is an article titled Crime in New York City, with a subsection devoted to subway crime, with essentially the same content as in the crime section. Hence, I would summarize the section in the history section, and then have a main article link to the subway crime subsection of Crime in New York City. This section also has a lot of technical discussion that should be simplified. The Manual signals subsection is the best example of a subsection that needs to have less technical language. This subsection may not be important enough to be in the main article, and should simply be redirected to Signaling of the New York City Subway, which one sentence just summarizing that New York City has this system.

This has been done.

Under the history subsection about expansion projects, two of those projects, the 7 train extension and the Fulton St. Station, are completed (at least that is what the article seems to say). The only expansion project in the article not done is the 2nd ave subway. As such, I recommend that the two finished projects be moved out of the bullet section, and put above the 2nd ave subway section. Then the bullet for the 2nd Ave subway section should be removed, and that would just be a plain paragraph.

Done

The Stations section of the article needs to be scaled down drastically. The main article is a list article, with List of New York City Subway stations being a good summary. However, I cam convinced that the list article is not the proper place for a detailed explanation of stations. I would therefore recommend creating a subarticle at New York City Subway stations. The info from the main NYC Subway article and the info from the list article could then be copied to the new subarticle. Then the info on the stations in the main article and the list article could be scaled down drastically to a few paragraphs.

Dealt with

I would remove the labels of line and route listings from the main article because those listings are in the list article already created. It seems unnecessary to me to have them in both places.

Done

I would recommend removing the chart of routes and lines from the lines and routes section, and then direct the reader to the appropriate subarticle. As it is, the tables look kind of awkward where they are. I would also consider removing the map of number of tracks on each line, and possibly move the image to the appropriate subarticle if it is not there already. The map of elevated vs. underground subway lines should stay.

Done

4. Is it neutral?

4a. Fair representation without bias:

"Safe train operation on the whole New York City Subway is ensured by a combination of interlocking, signalling, wayside train protection and wayside speed control layouts.[167] However, no technical system is free of hazards." Located in the safety and security section, this sounds like a promotion by the city. Please reword.

This is dealt with

5. Is it stable? No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

6a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

6b. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Plenty of pictures, perhaps even too many. I would consider removing some images from the article, although this is not mandatory.

I would remove a lot of the images from the station subsection when you shorten the station section. I would remove most of the artwork pictures, keeping maybe 2, at most, 3.

Taken care of by splitting off the section from the main article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Pass or Fail:

Overall, the content of the article is very useful in describing the subject. The biggest issues you have are the needed citations and the consolidation of information in the article. I am willing to give this article an extended period of time to be fixed, given that I think this article needs a good amount of work, but that given the high profile nature of the subject, it should not be too hard to find more references. 7 days is optimal, but just describe a time you think it will take you below, and if it is reasonable, I will be okay with it. I may add more concerns based on grammar when the article gets shortened and it is easier to find those mistakes. Otherwise, good luck editing. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: This article has not seen any edits since February 17th. Although progress has been made, the article still does not meet all the GA requirements. This review was done on February 5th, and 18 days have gone by. I am inclined to fail the article now and let you try again later, but I am willing to give you until February 29th to make progress on the review. After that date, I am going to have to close the review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what else needs to be done.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I looked through the article some more, and while some references were added, there are still citations that need to be added. A few paragraphs in the history section require citations. The concourse subsection requires some citations as well. The Platform section requires a lot of citations. Essentially, just look for the paragraphs without citations. Also, I am unsure which parts of my review you addressed. If possible, could you write a summary of your fixes under each criteria that needs to be addressed? That will make the review process easier. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done what I think has been asked of me. If I have missed anything, could you please mention it to me as soon as you can? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good now. Glad to pass. Congratulations. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

No problem. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please make maps colorblind-friendly

Hi, Could someone who is not colour-blind please make the aboveground map into, say, orange-blue rather than red-green? Qalaud (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Posted here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Need_help_updating_a_map_as_per_MOS:COLOR. epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Already done epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)