Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Hackensack NJT station question

So, both PVL stations in Hackensack, Anderson Street and Essex Street, have "Hackensack" in their article titles. (Hackensack-Essex Street (NJT station) and Hackensack-Anderson Street (NJT station), to be specific. I don't like either, firstly, because it's awkard, secondly because the shorter version omitting "Hackensack" is more commonly used, and thirdly because just as often (such as on-train automated announcements) put the "Hackensack" after the street name. Would anyone object to moving them to Essex Street (NJT station) and Anderson Street (NJT station)?oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I support your naming because it's consistent with the other similar NJT stations, i.e. Radburn (NJT station). But if I was naming them, I'd say "Anderson Street – Hackensack" and "Essex Street – Hackensack", because those names are supported by the system map and schedules. Isn't there an Essex Street HBLR station, though? Tinlinkin (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here it is. ----DanTD (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. So the PVL station should include a hatnote to the light rail station. Tinlinkin (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like. If there's going to be any renaming, I'd prefer your suggestions over those of Oknazevad. ----DanTD (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I think Anderson Street can be a standalone, there is no other station in the system named Anderson Street. Also of note, I am rewriting the Anderson Street article as we speak in a sandbox. Should be done tonight and I'll move it to whatever name ends up being chosen.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mitch. While the NJT map includes "Hackensack" with the name of both, the PVL timetables do not, and the only mention on station signage is in smaller print, indicating that it is not part of the name proper. And the Essex Streets would be disambiguated by the (NJT station) vs.(HBLR station).oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though I'm not too fond of removing Hackensack from the names, I added the addresses to both stations and I included Hackensack within them. Perhaps you should include these addresses in the rewritten versions you're doing, Mitch. ----DanTD (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Already did, but thank you. Do we have a picture of the station before the fire (which happened one year ago tomorrow morning) at Anderson Street? I need a pic of it for that or of the station now. I have the historical pics found.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can neither provide that, nor can I suggest anyplace to look for it. ----DanTD (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I published the sandbox under the article's current name. We need to decide on either Anderson Street (NJT station) or Anderson Street - Hackensack (NJT station) for a new name.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Looks fantastic Mitch! (And sorry I couldn't be of more help with the Lake Hopatcong rewrite, but Ive only been out that way once and don't know enough about it). I made one tiny change, as the PVL is technically an east-west railroad by timetable, the legacy of being an Erie branch line (the Erie having run to Buffalo and, ultimately Chicago). Actually, that is common on many PVL related articles, such as towns the line serves. I try and fix it anytime I see it. Anyway, what's the verdict on article names? To "Hackensack" or not to "Hackensack", that is the question.oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I can get a pic of Anderson Street as it now appears, but I don't know if a patch of relatively fresh blacktop with a white bus shelter next to it makes for much of a picture. Sadly, that is indeed all that is there. Still, if you there's a belief that we should, I can easily get a picture of that, along with one of Essex Street and New Bridge Landing in the next couple of days. I already am getting a promised pic of the Hackensack Bus Terminal, so might as well get em all.oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have another question about New Jersey Transit; Why does their website make it impossible to find specific links for individual railroad stations? They'll let you look up parking info, but all stations share the same URL. I've noticed that SEPTA's revamped website has made the same task difficult now as well. I was trying to use it for the Highland Avenue (NJT station) article, but nothing there is useful as either a reference or external link. ----DanTD (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that may be the effect of Java or some other similar type of coding. Note the word "servlet" in the URL. I think the mobile site version may be different, but I'm not sure.oknazevad (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its a pain in the neck. Also, yes a pic of Anderson Street Station now would help. Also, if you have a pic of the station site, it would be nice.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 14:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I still can't get it. But I did add your request in the image details parameter on the Anderson Street station article. Just out of curiosity, will you be doing any work on the new version of the Essex Street article? ----DanTD (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just do them on a first come basis when I am the mood to.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it necessary to delete the previous version of Hackensack-Anderson Street (NJT station) from the record? It's not like the previous article was so much different than the current one. What about the attribution/documentation license? Tinlinkin (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am just not very good with history merges, I'll get another admin to fix it.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 03:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moves completed

So I followed through on the moves I tried, to the best of my ability, to update templates to reflect the moves. Any other errant links are probably ok, but I'll fix em as I see em. Following your suggestion, Tinlinkin, I put a hatnote on Essex Street (NJT station). To allay your concerns, Dan, when modifying the route maps, I put "Hackensack" in after the station links. oknazevad (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And, finally for this burst of effort, got pictures up for Anderson Street, New Bridge Landing, Hillsdale, and Towaco (which I already had sitting on my camera), as well as the Hackensack Bus Terminal. They're not perfect (and may be a little fuzzy at high resolution), but for the purpose of illustration the article I think they're pretty good. They're certainly better than the nothing that was there.oknazevad (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are far better than nothing. It's just a cellphone camera, which makes low resolution and a bit of blurring; not a big problem. Bigger problem, they are mostly southwestward in the evening, when buildings are mostly illuminated from the back. Too bad you couldn't stand to the west and shoot downsun. The general darkness could be partially repaired by adjusting in a simple editing program like Picasa, which could also trim the amount of frame space given to parking lots. I see the pix are geotagged, presumably automatically, but Wikipedia cannot read their locations directly. Such pictures can be automatically Google Mapped if you upload them instead to Wikimedia Commons. Who knows, maybe if your future shots are uploaded there, an experienced picture fixer might take pity and adjust and crop them as they have sometimes done for my mediocre pix of interesting places. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True about the sun, but unfortunately it gets dark so quickly around here that while the sun was good for New Bridge Landing, the first of the three I visited that day, by the time I got to Anderson, a half hour later at most, the sun's position was worse. The direction was, I believe, neccessary for the details. Otherwise the pics would be of the back end of the Hackensack Bus Terminal and the signs at Anderson Street identifying the stations would be blocked by the adjacent buildings and the shelter itself. The framing of the parking lots were also intentional, as both Anderson Street since the fire, and NBL since it's own fire years ago, truly consist of nothing more than a low platform, a bus-type shelter and a parking lot. I felt that it was neccessary to include the lots to, if you'll excuse the pun, get a complete pictue of the station. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Two of three Hackensack Stations now finished

Since Anderson Street is now a GA, I have gone ahead and written about the former Fairmount Avenue Station, which somehow made it to the New Jersey Transit days. I'll get to Essex Street when I can.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 16:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the edits I made to Anderson Street and New Bridge Landing (NJT station)? I swiped the routeboxes from Valhalla (Metro-North station) and Mount Pleasant (Metro-North station).----DanTD (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as NBL and Anderson Street are on my watchlist. It works. Looks like I may just end slowly rewriting all these PVL articles.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out the second set of succession boxes that included Fairmount. It is my understanding that such boxes are intended to provide a view of current services, not historical. There's also the issue of inaccuracy. As I said in my edit summary at NBL, that name and the active Fairmount Ave station never coexisted, so it is an error for a navbox to include both. I also caught a few spots where you missed some changes from your Anderson Street article when you used it as a template for the Fairmount Ave article.

As a lengthy aside, the former Fairmount location where they staged the building of the nearby passing siding, and remains around as an employee stop for some track maintenance uses. It wasn't that long ago that I was on a PVL train that stopped to pick up some employees there, and I remember commenting to the conductor about the strangeness of stopping at a station that had been closed since 1983. He laughed. I mention this because I do in fact belive that 1983, not 1982, is the correct closing date. If it'd had been 1982, technically it wouldn't have been an NJT station, as the Rail Ops wasn't formerld until 1983. Between 1979 (NJT's original formation) and then the commuter rail was operated by Conrail under contract to NJT, which was merely a funding channel, as the DOT had been.

Boy, that was longer than expected.oknazevad (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples where former stations are used in succession boxes of current ones, like Cragin (Metra) and Hermosa (Metra) surrounding the existing Grand/Cicero (Metra), and Lamokin Street (SEPTA station) between Highland Avenue (SEPTA station) and the Chester Transportation Center. You claim that New Bridge Lane and Fairmount Avenue never coexisted, New Bridge Lane was originally North Hackensack (NJT station). Did they ever coexist when it was under the former name? ----DanTD (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It went Hackensack (now Essex Street) -> Anderson Street -> Fairmount Avenue -> North Hackensack during Erie days. New Bridge Landing was the name made in 2009.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitch is right in terms of order, but my point was that the New Bridge Landing name never coexisted with an open Fairmount Ave station. Indeed the Fairmount Ave station had been closed for 25 years before the NBL name was coined (trivia bit, NBL/N Hackensack was previously called Cherry Hill way back when). So having the neologistic name with the historical station seems off to me. Also, I don't know exactly why we should account for Fairmount Ave in succession boxes and not count for the other closed stations on the line, which are on the main article's line map.

As a side note, Mitch, if you are going to write up further PVL station articles, some of the material on the background probably may be a better fit for the main PVL article or thenstubby ones on its predecessors, the Hackensack and New York Railroad and the New Jersey and New York Railroad.oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Was only planning on putting that in for the three Hackensack stations, as they are rather important.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I planned on writing New Milford as well. The other one I am not sure about is Carlstadt.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LIRR Line templates causing troubles again

Quite a few Templates for LIRR lines have messed up their related articles to the point where I had to remove them. They've included the Port Jefferson Branch, Hempstead Branch, West Hempstead Branch, Far Rockaway Branch, and Atlantic Branch. Who can fix these? ----DanTD (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On Port Jefferson Branch, I used either {{FixBunching|end}} or {{Stack}}. It's not a great fix because the edit link for the first section is misplaced, so it's a temporary one for now. Tinlinkin (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

G Service

The following discussion is moved from Talk:G (New York City Subway service)#Weekend Service; the same messages were found at Talk:New York City Subway and Talk:Straphangers Campaign.

Does anybody have inside info on any future plans to eliminate G service. My hunch is that the current weekend "repairs" are a test of a G line phase out. What is the MTA planning?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that they could go away with it that easily... The G has been showing steady rising in usage, so they can not eliminate it that easy. I can see eliminating (the somewhat already discontinued)service on the Queens Blvd line, but not the line at it's whole length. They are claiming that they are changing the track foundation. I will check that on Tuesday and from there we can draw conclusions...!!! TomasNY (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have used the G for 26 years, the MTA has never curtailed service and put people on a shuttle bus. My hunch is that come 2011( after the 2010 elections) there will long lines in the AM waiting for a shuttle bus to Queens Plaza. What are the insiders saying about the future of the G?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote They are claiming that they are changing the track foundation, I contend that they could replace one track at at a time on the weekends and run the G on the other, this has been the routine in the past.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomas do we have statistics on the number of daily riders for each line in the system? The bureaucrats at MTA will be looking at that statistic when they make their cuts.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed the first time (I only use the G for the last 3 years- you should know better...) that they completely eliminate the G for the whole weekend. But it is also the first time they cut the 7 -a far more important line- at Wilets Point, and offered a free transfer to Flushing via shuttle buses this weekend and the next. My guess (and hope) is that they realized that they are far more productive when the completely shut down a line (or section of it) than creating S services and having union workers working next. I tried to find stats but the new website (which is much better than the old one) is not helping me. Any how there is no doubt that the G is the line with the less ridership (I am guessing that the V is somewhere around too). But they never closed down completely a line, and there is no station in the system that is completely closed anytime. Finally lets not forget that Court Sq. is getting an inside the system transfer with the 7 by the summer. That will bring in more numbers from Flushing and Astoria,and hopefully curtailing service more on the G will get out of the table. TomasNY (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About twenty years ago there was a proposal to eliminate G service on the weekends and from midnight to 6:00 AM on weekdays. That may be on the hidden agenda of the MTA. The political reality in New York dictates that any major cuts must be made after the 2010 elections. What is the MTA planning behind the scenes?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we, the public, do not (and should not) have first-hand detailed knowledge of the state of the MTA's infrastructure or needs, we should not speculate whether the weekend construction is a sign of bad things to come for the G train. Wikipedia is not a discussion board to debate such things. That said, however, construction exists for improvement of the system, not to denigrate it. Could they have tried to minimize the disruption? Perhaps, but they felt this was the most efficient way to do the maintenance they need. If you have reliable sources to add to articles regarding G service, feel free to add them. To answer other questions, [1] is the official 2008 ridership statistics for subway stations. [2] is a second-party Excel spreadsheet that shows the historical recorded ridership in stations. I had also been searching for aggregate line data, but I could not find any published sources. And you may be interested in track maps: [3] is the main page at www.nycsubway.org. ([4] is the MTA press release for the service disruption.) Tinlinkin (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The public has a right to know about any planned changes. The issues need be on the public agenda, not behind closed doors. Lets hope there is a whistle blower out there who rides the G train to work, not a heliocopter--Woogie10w (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of wikipedia is not a message board don't you get.

Getting that out of the way, and blatantly violating it to respond to your nonsense, simply put, the absence of evidence of a supposed conspiracy against the G train is quite truly evidence of absence of such a conspiracy. The MTA has been quite forward with what their contigency plans for service reductions are. Kiss the W and Z good bye (which cover no unique territory) and all routes will see reducions in frequency. No stations will close, no lines will be closed, and the G will not be shut down! (See, I can do the obnoxious, unneccessary boldface, too.)oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct wikipedia is not a message board but users have the right to inquire if there are reliable sources regarding any future changes in G service. I see that my inquiry has touched a raw nerve at the MTA. Let us see what other users may find in future the regarding the future cutbacks planned by the MTA. The attitude of the MTA has always been that the public should not have first-hand detailed knowledge of future cutbacks until after the general elections.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oknazevad, you may be correct, this source reports asbestos removal at Greenpoint Avenue was part of the current repair project. [5] I have been using the subways since 1955 and the G line since 1985. It is a well known fact that about 1990 the MTA put forward a proposal to eliminiate the G line at night. Public outcry shot this down. My inqiry is not nonsense viewed in light of the recent proposal to end late night subway service [6].--Woogie10w (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

G line service has always been a political issue of varying degrees of potency. Perhaps the political aspects can be expanded? --ScottyBerg (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IRT Question

I had a question about the elevated New York City transit lines. Mostly they are named a "IRT" lines. However, most predated the IRT system, and the elevated-only lines, such as the Third Avenue El, are rarely referred to as IRT lines in any newspaper articles and websites or books that you can find on NYC transit. Can this be fixed?--ScottyBerg (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The IRT bought the lease for the els from the Manhattan Railway Company in 1903, and before then, they were separate companies. Thus, they were not part of the IRT before 1903. And after New York City subway unification in 1940, references to the 3 divisions (IRT/BMT/IND) were discouraged, but they were still used by the public to distinguish the rapid transit lines and distinct characteristics of the systems. The elevateds were operated by the IRT and BRT/BMT (but owned by New York City), so they were considered to be a part of those systems; thus, the naming. Tinlinkin (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I come up with only ten hits when I run "IRT third avenue" through Google News Archives, http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22irt+third+avenue%22, while "Third Avenue El" (in quotes) yields 640 hits. I don't know a thing about Wikipedia practice, so forgive my ignorance on that, but in terms of common usage it was definitely "Third Avenue El" or "Third Avenue Elevated." Same results when you try ordinary google, see this, http://www.google.com/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22third%20avenue%20el%22&sa=N&tab=nw (375,000 hits) vs. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22irt+third+avenue%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= (83,800), and I think that a lot of the hits for "IRT Third Avenue" were repeats of the Wikipedia article. --ScottyBerg (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, try spelling out "Interborough Rapid Transit" as in [7]. So, as I said, those elevateds were components of the IRT/BRT systems for only a part of their history. Before 1903 you will not see IRT attached to the elevated lines. So it's natural to expect that there would be more search results for "Third Avenue El" than for "IRT Third Avenue." I agree with you that "Third Avenue El" was the popular name (although I can't testify to that since I born after their demolition). My point was that before New York City's takeover of the three systems, the elevateds were a part of those systems, and thus their names in Wikipedia are justified with those prefixes.

Are you suggesting a page move? You would have to ask for a larger consensus because, while I won't disapprove of a move, I find it unnecessary at this time as I am unconvinced of a good reason. Also, particularly with the Third Avenue Elevated, there was also an elevated on Third Avenue in Brooklyn, so you run into a disambiguation problem in that case. Tinlinkin (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just raising the issue for discussion. The Wiki page naming rules are hazy to me. Keep in mind I'm just starting out here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome! Tinlinkin (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullets in articles

We have way too many uses of the bullet in the G-article, it looks horrible with bullets everywhere in the article. Its also in the title!Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Mitch. The article looks like a NYCTA press release. I think it was all one user. I just undid his change at 1 (New York City Subway service). AFAIK, the MOS and other guides here say NOT to use them on articles where they are purely decorative, as it is distracting and does nothing for further information. It also runs afoul of WP:ACCESS as it screws with screen readers. So take em all out.oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually an advocate of bullets, but I agree that this editor had taken them too far. On the other hand, is there a reason I can't add them to Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line)? I don't want them splattered all over the article like that editor does, I just want them in the same places as every other station. Also, I think there are some cases where they can be left in the articles like in the A Train article where it mentions the "Five rush hour trips designated A Diamond ()." Other articles that mention express lines should be able to show diamond-bullets. But they shoudln't be thrown all over the place. ----DanTD (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I specifically left the A diamond in, because, frankly, I never even knew it existed, and know of absolutely nowhere else it appears on the internet. But Ireverted all the others.oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The A diamond bullet is found in the A train timetable but not in the current system map. I am unsure if it is used consistently on trains. I have no strong feeling if the diamond should be used here or not. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised service cuts

The MTA has put out a revised list of service reductions. Besides letting us know what won't be around this summer, there are plenty of gems in there about service: ridership numbers and special service patterns that are unadvertised. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link! I've updated the main NYCS page with the new service cuts. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I have seen mentions of the previous proposal deleted. Is this a good idea? Tinlinkin (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stations needing images lists

Besides Shappy's list of NYC Subway station articles needing images, I uploaded my own similar lists on LIRR and Metro-North stations that need images on the main page. We should keep track of them and cross out articles that already have them. I reserved a future list for HBLR stations, but I think I should consider replacing it with one for Staten Island Railway stations. ----DanTD (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work, but going out to snap a bunch of desired pix in a particular place would be easier if the categories were much more finely divided. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York City for example has well over 200 items scattered all over, and its subcats are not all much smaller. If each category were narrow enough to contain only a couple dozen requests of all types of target, I could plan a route come springtime, unfold my bike in whatever neighborhood, and shoot the lot in an hour or two depending on how narrow the field.

What with weather and flu, I haven't been on the bike since early January, but have a morning appointment in Downtown Brooklyn on Sunday Feb 20 and intend to travel by an unphotographed IRT station to Flatbush Avenue and probably catch St Ann's Collegiate later as well, unless some happy shutterbug beats me there. No need to be so fine grained in Downtown Brooklyn which I visit fairly often, but when pedaling along in less familiar parts such as the central Bronx, a prepared mind can be more powerful. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit something else here; I'm thinking of writing a separate chapter for former stations, and adding special notes for yards such as the Hillside Facility and Morris Park Facility, at least for the LIRR list. I don't know if I should do the same for the Metro-North list or not. Speaking of the latter, if Hillside Facility has the (LIRR stations) in parentheses, shouldn't Morris Park have this too? ----DanTD (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Babylon Branch history

Okay, more LIRR stuff; For a while I've placed a hidden history chapter in the article on the Babylon Branch. Would anybody mind going to that article and examining it, to see what I'm missing, and what I should get rid of, and such? ----DanTD (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but couldn't you just add the tag {{expand section}} so that other people can add to the section at their leisure? Tinlinkin (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor edits and "revealed" the history section. This is the extent of my editing there for now. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, don't be sorry. You make a good point regarding the expansion tag. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The description

Here's what I've got so far;

The Babylon Branch began as the electrification of the Montauk Branch between Valley Stream and Babylon on May 20, 1925. Eventually, this would also include the former " Springfield Branch" which the Montauk Branch was relocated to northeast of Springfield Junction. The tracks were elevated from the 1950's through the 1970's. The last station to be elevated on the branch was Massapequa Park (LIRR station) on December 13, 1980.

So what am I missing? ----DanTD (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures needed and revisited

I just scanned an image of 167th Street (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) from Google Street View, and I've come to the conclusion that the best image of that station would be from 167th Street and Gerard Avenue. You'd have to stand in the middle of the crosswalk and hope nobody runs you over, but it'd still be a great shot. ----DanTD (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting view. My camera's rather old (2.0 megapixels and 2X optical zoom). I have one pic of that station (platform) from when I took the Nostalgia Train, but it's pretty bad. I might be able to do it, though, as I have a similar pic of Van Siclen Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) yet to upload. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be interesting. I didn't get up to The Bronx this winter, but I did get an added shot for Islip (LIRR station), have plans for a gallery for Sayville (LIRR station), took a shot or two of where the former Union Hall Street (LIRR station) used to be, and even got a few of Kew Gardens (LIRR station) and Woodmere (LIRR station). For the last three, I'm going to have to wait until I use up all the film on my disposable camera, but the Sayville station images are going to require renaming and deciding which image should go into the infobox. ----DanTD (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed it a couple months ago, after getting the Bronx stone arches of High Bridge and the Yankee Stadium MN station. Must return when weather warms; it's less than ten miles from where I'm sitting. Also should replace the nearby bad pix I got on a rainy day last spring. We'll see which of us three phototurtles wins this race; too chilly for me to pedal anywhere this weekend. Film?? Wow. Pharmacies sell digital cameras almost as cheap; cheaper if you include the cost of a couple dozen prints, and with a quicker and easier path to Wikipedia. Don't need a fancy kind of digicam; see Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm new to the Wikimedia Commons scene and uploading media, I find that I frequently need to correct my images because they come out too dark. The Wikimedia Commons seems to update images infrequently. I posted File:Myrtle Wyckoff BMT Canarsie Line platform.JPG first with the original image from my camera, then with a lighter one. The lighter image is not showing up as a thumbnail, but it is when the full photo is shown. But then I just saw that File:161st Street Yankee Stadium IRT Jerome southbound platform 2009 Yankee Stadium.JPG was just updated, so it must be an annoying delay. My results also don't come out as glossy as I'd like. Do you also have any tips on nighttime shots? Tinlinkin (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jim. I've seen plenty of these cheap digital cameras in pharmacies, but in spite of the wikiessay you've showed me, when I take a picture, I prefer to do it with quality. Sadly, I don't always get it, as I didn't in some recent photos of some churches in Patchogue. Although once in a while I get to take some good ones with the disposable cameras. ----DanTD (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Last month I discussed similar hardware questions in Commons:Help desk/Archives/2009Dec#Advice about digital cameras and since this is about photography rather than about NYC trains, I figure we're talking on the wrong forum. Besides, I have to get my breakfast off the fire, eat it, check my watchlist, and depart to meet someone in Brooklyn and snap a few pix of the former Sperry Gyroscope factory and other targets, so I'll defer any further comment to after the sun sets and no longer makes photography easy. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York#Photography which I think is more appropriate to this more wide ranging topic, with answers to some of the above questions.

Back on topic, File:Van Siclen Avenue BMT Jamaica entrance.JPG is the promised example picture. I went to 167th & Jerome this Sunday, but the sun was setting and my results weren't good. I may try again this week or the next. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. I've also created a few new categories in the commons for various lines within the past two weeks, and I'm considering others. Any comment on the recent LIRR images I've posted though(I already know the one I've got for Woodmere (LIRR station) sucks.)? ----DanTD (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to get quality at night with film. Even on my good screen your Woodmere isn't as pretty as your File:Union Hall Street Station Facade.jpg in broad daylight, which is much helped (north sides are notoriously difficult) by the heavy overcast that day. Most screens will fail to show Woodmere's charms unless it gets a brightness / contrast adjustment. I won't adjust anyone else's pix until my own backlog of unprocessed shots disappears, which is unlikely this year. While geotagging my old photos of subway stations etc from before I had an autogeotagging camera, I've seen many having Commons categories both in "New York City Subway Stations in Boro X" and in line cats, and been eliminating the boro cats as redundant, but maybe I am mistaken in the case of lines that are mostly but not completely in one boro. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my Union Hall Street Station image, although I noticed a serious crack on th southwest corner of that bridge that looks like it should get the attention of the LIRR and/or MTA. Maybe I should contact them about this issue. ----DanTD (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I told the LIRR about that crack in the bridge. They said they forwarded the message to the LIRR structural engineers and they'd look into it. ----DanTD (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Smithsonian pix

Pictures of the old El trains dating back to the turn of the century are available on the Smithsonian website. Can these be capture on freeze frame and uploaded to the appropriate articles? If so, is there a how-to guide available for newbies? Thanks, --ScottyBerg (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Always glad when a newcomer arrives with good ideas. You're talking about a two part operation: fetch someone else's picture, and send to Wikimedia. Fetch is generally by right-clicking the picture on the web site that is hosting it. Send is by Commons:Commons:First steps/Upload form which is rather complex. What's especially difficult, when it's someone else's picture, is not the technical procedure but the legal requirements. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll research that. Most of the pictures I had in mind were from the early part of the century and were early silent films. There is of course the famous picture of the very first New York subwayline, which may well already be in Wikipedia for all I know. In addition there's a fascinating one traveling up the 9th Avenue El. My personal interest is in the El lines and other vintage trains. Next time I'll put a header when I post here, though actually I was chiming in on the preceding discussion. Appreciate your fixing that. --ScottyBerg (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Other potential images

There are still plenty of unused, replaced, and orphan images that could be added, and I just hid another image in one of the Fourth Avenue/Ninth Street (New York City Subway) infoboxes. Is this the right one for the BMT Fourth Avenue Line segment? ----DanTD (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that image is a picture of the 9th Ave Express station on the West End line. You're looking for the 9th Street local station.

Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Then if nobody has removed it, I will, and I'll add to a future gallery on that article. ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

New Grand Central Terminal infobox

I made a new combined infobox for Grand Central Terminal. Let me know what you think of it. ----DanTD (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems with it. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New userbox

4This user takes the 4 train of the New York City Subway.

I have created a new userbox for the NYCS: {{User:Tinlinkin/NYCS}}. Enjoy! Tinlinkin (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (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 [8] --ScottyBerg (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jamaica-Beaver Street (LIRR station)

I'm thinking about redirecting all redlinks for Jamaica-Beaver Street (LIRR station) and Beaver Street (LIRR station) to Jamaica (LIRR station), but I suspect I'd have to write a whole new chapter or sub-chapter in the Jamaica Station article. Should I redirect them to Jamaica anyway? ----DanTD (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with the station history, but the Beaver Street station's history is connected to the current Jamaica station. One article from the New York Times says: "A muddy road forms part of the passageway from main line trains to the Beaver Street Station, which in rainy weather will be very disagreeable." Whatever you decide, I think it's appropriate to include the Beaver Street station in the current Jamaica station article, e.g. the redirects would be applicable. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did it in spite of a near edit war. ----DanTD (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but what I said in my edit summary I still believe. Adding commented out text as a rough draft is a poor way to develop additions, due to the loading and whitespace issues I mentioned, plus the greater difficulty in having others give you work a once over. I recommend sticking to the sandbox.oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And how would you suggest I go about doing this? Create a whole sandbox for an article that was never going to exist? It's bad enough I ended up creating one for Cedar Beach in Mount Sinai. ----DanTD (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep a running sandbox for drafting passages, paragraphs and chapters. After drafting an addition there and testing what it would look like by saving it there, you could then cut and paste the text over to the appropriate article. There's no need for sandboxes to be moved in their entirety to article space, and no need for a sandbox to even look like a complete article. It's drafting space, where experimenting and testing can occur. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two mergers to consider

I've already made this request on the proposed mergers page, and now I'm bringing them here:

• Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) into Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (New York City Subway). The Early-20th Century image on the A&P Subway station article appears to indicate that the 5th Avenue Line station was part of the original Atlantic Avenue subway station.
• Eighth Avenue (New York City Subway) ‎and Eighth Avenue Line (disambiguation) into each other somehow. The former page was made apparently without the knowledge of the latter, and both include the IND Eighth Avenue Line. I tried to combine hatnotes for both on the IND Eighth Avenue Line article, but couldn't make it work, and along the way I realized both dab pages would be better of being combined.

Let me know what you think of these ideas. ----DanTD (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Both: I agree. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• The Eighth Avenue disambigs definately need reorganization. I'd take out the redundant parts from the former and rename it something like Eighth Avenue (New York City Subway station), leaving a separate article for the line(s), as "Eighth Avenue Line" is a likely search term, which is where disambigs are most needed. I'd hold off on the Atlantic Avenue merge until more is known about the Fifth Ave El station, though from what I've seen it does seem like it was attached. oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• With the disambiguation, there is Eighth Avenue (disambiguation). Editors who look over disambiguation pages tend to want a consistent style. I will post a notice at WT:DAB, as I really should have done before for previous matters. The Atlantic Avenue elevated station did not look attached to me, if you're referring to File:NYCS IRT EasternPkwy AtlanticAve.jpg. It also wouldn't make sense because the IRT and BRT were competitors and thus a free transfer wouldn't have been likely. I couldn't find anything about a free transfer with the elevated station. So I can't support the elevated merge. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the disambig pages to Eighth Avenue (disambiguation) because they were both incomplete disambigations. And I guess the two stations won't be merged anytime soon based on the above. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) appears to be a demolished elevated train station. Therefore I would not favor merger to the article on the current Atlantic-Pacific station. The other merger is logical and appears to have already been carried out. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The old image of the headhouse(File:NYCS IRT EasternPkwy AtlanticAve.jpg, File:Atlantic Avenue headhouse dusk jeh.JPG) has a demolished elevated train too, and I see a staricase behind it leading to the el. Even if that isn't the former Atlantic Avenue 5th Avenue Line station, it's an el that ran over Atlantic Avenue station. ----DanTD (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be the former 5th Avenue El station on Flatbush Avenue. It just isn't connected to the underground station and there would have been separate fare controls. To ScottyBerg, Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway) includes both the current Franklin/Fulton station complex and the BRT Fulton Street Line station. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so if there's no need for a merger, and the old pic of the Atlantic Avenue subway headhouse does include the 5th Avenue El, maybe I should withdraw my proposal and use that image in the other article, with an appropriate description. If there's any reason I shouldn't, just let me know. ----DanTD (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Colors for PATH Air Trains

Today, I finally added colors for the routeboxes for AirTrain Newark (maroon), and AirTrain JFK (yellow). If anybody tries to make real routeboxes out of them, they should be added with the other PATH templates. ----DanTD (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Dan. I see you went with the yellow for the JFK AirTrain. I presume this is due to the use of bright yellow for the line on the New York City Subway map? If so, I say good call. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That, and my inability to find the blue & green that was said to be the official colors of JFK Air Train in an earlier thread. ----DanTD (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AirTrains for PATH templates?

The questions of whether both AirTrain lines can and should be intergrated into Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson templates should still be considered. ----DanTD (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To that I say no. While the AirTrains are, like PATH, owned by the Port Authority, all three are completely separate systems, with no sharing of trackage, rolling stock, maintainence facilities, technical specifications, etc. In short, they're not the PATH, so they shouldn't be part of the PATH category. oknazevad (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Airtrain is PATH? No. As Oknazevad said above, they are completely separate systems. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps Street View

What do you all think about User:Gfoley4's addition of Google Maps Street View links for station entrances, like here? (Better to bring this up now before it is done on 420+ pages.) Tinlinkin (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as they're accurate, I'm okay with them. I've run into my share of sites marked on Google Maps Street View and Wikimapia that have been incorrect, and out of date. ----DanTD (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I've been checking them, and they are accurate. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked a few of them myself, and I know you're right. But in other instances I've found their location for Amsterdam (Amtrak station) and one crossing over the Pithlachascotee River in Pasco County, Florida to be way off. This is just something we should all keep in mind, including User:Gfoley4. ----DanTD (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the accuracy I was concerned about, but whether such links are appropriate external links. I suppose they are. I have found Template:Gsvlink, which is a relatively new template, that could be used to standardize the links. The search information should be suppressed, though, like the 88th/Liberty station is irrelevant to the Beach 67th Street station. Tinlinkin (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my concern as well. WP:ELNO says not to include a direct link to search engine results, as they add no specific value and can too easily change, both in content and location. The question is, do these links constitute a search engine result? I'm not sure, but I kinda lean toward yes. oknazevad (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the template takes care of the search engine concern, seems to me that's the way to go. By whichever method, we have to check against the sky view, which is less precise but more accurate than Google's locations of its Street View pictures. Google's database of coordinates of addresses and notable places, in turn, is even less accurate than Street View, many locations being off by hundreds or occasionally thousands of meters, so every location has to be checked against the aerial photos. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Goggle Street View is a work in progress, and sometimes can be way off. But I commend that user for adding those links. They add value to the articles, when accurate. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding templates, they are still subject to policies and guidelines, of which WP:EL is one, so the validity of templates can be questioned anytime. And a question about updating: When Google Street View updates its images, what happens to the existing links? Tinlinkin (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, which I think may be part of the problems with using them as external links.oknazevad (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is an external link but I don't see that WP:EL is recommending against it, assuming we use it to call up a feature of Google Maps rather than a Google search. Last year I was hoping that this kind of street view would become available from more than just Google and be accessed through the same multiple choice page as the various mapping sites. However, Microsoft's Bing seems stalled at a much too primitive state to compete with Google's service in this respect. Also, the multiple choice menu is based on a single point of interest, while street views have been thus far selected properly for a good view of a particular feature, so they way we're doing it now seems correct. Unless, that is, it becomes invalid every time Google sends its car through the neighborhood and replaces the pictures with ones taken from an arm's length away. That's my only unsatisfied suspicion as we don't know whether the system will take it in stride. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates would be a good place for further inquiries.

On a Street View link going stale: true, that may happen, but that seems to be an issue with links in general. It can always be updated. The problem is how frequently they become stale. If their links are volatile then it may not be a good idea to include them after all. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have posted a message to WikiProject Geographical coordinates (Thanks, Jim). I hope that User:Gfoley4's edits are not in vain, since there are other types of improvements needed for articles (references, anyone?), and these kinds of external links are not a high priority. Tinlinkin (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New style of NJ Transit signs for infoboxes

NJ Transit Signage Proposal

Great Notch with Helvetica signage

Dover with Goudy Old Style signage

Seeing the dullness of the infobox for the New Jersey Transit infoboxes in comparison to lines like Metro North or the Long Island Railroad, I have asked for a good design for the signs used on NJ Transit platforms. They are to the right of this message. The first one, using Great Notch Station as an example is a variant of Helvetica, and is the basic font design. The second is the second-style used by the company, which is the typeface Goudy Old Style. This design is my preference, but it doesn't have to be. They are simple Inkscape designs and follow a file naming system as I'd like to add them to infoboxes for real accuracy. I would like consensus to finish them though and implement them.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The helvectica one looks more appropriate, but that doesn't mean the Goudy Old Style one should be dumped. I suppose that one could be for closed stations, or maybe even stations on NRHP. You could combine them with the existing infoboxes, which aren't as standard as you might think. I still wish there were some new versions of the Metra and SEPTA infoboxes, but they're not part of this project. ----DanTD (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that NJ Transit themselves are inconsistent (for lack of a better word) with station signage. I do believe they have a system for which stations get which style of signage (and I think Dan generally hit it on the head with the NRHP thing, but that isn't even consistently applied). But we would need to confirm that somehow, to ensure that we put the right style with the right stations. Otherwise we run the risk of errors.oknazevad (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The only line I haven't had to see them are on the Northeast Corridor and the more i think of it, the more Dan's right, but I'd still like to implement them.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's one fact I have to remind you of; a lot of stations on the North Jersey Coast Line still need to have their NJT and NRHP infoboxes combined. ----DanTD (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As the creator of the NYC-area station signage-styled infoboxes, I feel encouraged that others have taken an interest. But I made some deliberate decisions, while working within the constraints of Wikipedia. The first is, I avoided creating or rendering image files of signage because I was unsure of the legalities (trademarks, copyrights) surrounding them. I tried to create them using Wiki code to the best of my knowledge. I was hoping that others would adapt/improve what I came up with to other systems, but I haven't seen anything really. But even then, that question of legality still remains. I wouldn't be surprised if one day {{Infobox NYCS}} must be changed to a different style. I am not opposed particularly to the use of images, but along with the reasons above, creating many images on what is essentially a decorative element of the encyclopedia is a risk that I wouldn't take. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently started working on the first of the newly combined NJT/NRHP infoboxes, but I didn't use the new signs. Here's Aberdeen-Matawan Station, but I've also got others planned. Any info on the correct year it was built would be helpful. ----DanTD (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Too big. The map needs to go at the very least, and the resolution is not great (so is the photo in the dark, which I need to replace.)Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 13:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Long Beach Branch on the Cedarhurst Cut-Off

Anybody have any info on the Long Beach Branch previously sharing trackage with the Montauk Branch and West Hempstead Branch? I've read a few things about this line going there as far back as the late-1950's, and a few things about it on here, but I can't find too much else on when it was moved there, or realigned to the Atlantic Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember!

With the elimination of the V and recoloring of the M, and so on, we have to be on the ready to refomat everything accordingly. Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the service change will happen in June, the service/line templates won't be a problem. (Just need to look up which templates are applicable. I will edit those templates closer to the change.) It's the orange M bullet file that will need to be prepared and created. And it's not just the M/V; the G and W will also need tweaking. Tinlinkin (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we handle the two north terminals of the M? Track-wise, the M will travel south from Forest Hills to Metropolitan Ave. However it is unrealistic to list the next south station from Essex Street. More realistically, the next north station is Broadway-Lafayette via 6th Ave, and Marcy Ave via the Jamaica line. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. OK. Obviously there will be a discrepancy somewhere if we continue to use "next station north" and "next station south." (I remember there was a discussion years ago about the station succession used in the Amtrak portion of Pennsylvania Station (New York City), but I can't find it.) Since the M's trunk line will become the Sixth Avenue Line, Metropolitan Avenue will become the "south" terminal.

To solve this, I am now seriously considering implementing the {{S-line}} and {{S-rail}} succession boxes. I will need help from the main Trains project, so be on the lookout for a message there. The other choice would be to add a note about railroad directions, which is awkward. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't like the {{S-line}} template; too chunky and huge to fit into the NYCS infobox. I would prefer a note on railroad directions instead. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know they're chunky, but that's because there are so many services and time of day variants that no other system has. But the more important factor, I think, is that the destinations that define the services are important for WP readers and for those unfamiliar with the system. If this context is provided, a better understanding can be gained. The current succession boxes were designed to replace many individual templates for each transit system. Please see here for background. The NYCS was granted an exemption then. Now I think is a good time to move toward the standard. It's not that it can't be done, but it's complicated. The succession boxes can be removed from the infobox and be placed on the bottom of pages/sections like London Underground stations and other articles. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the M is heading south on the Jamaica line towards Metropolitan, the J and Z are traveling north on that shared stretch from Essex to Myrtle. Each station would list the previous and next stations twice (for north and south simultaneously). That's why I said that the M should reverse railroad direction in the Chrystie St cut; thus the two north terminals. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Has an official stance on the terminals been determined yet? And are there other examples in the world like this, and how are the directions handled there? To answer my question partly, Red Line (Washington Metro) has a similar U-shaped route and the Circle Line (London Underground) is also unusual (i.e. St. James's Park tube station). Tinlinkin (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Striking out my comments above; I just looked at the actual article. It lists Broadway-Lafayette St as the next south station (no regular service). I am fine with that wording. That should keep the confusion to a minimum. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::We're also going to have to create a new Orange M bullet! —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 17:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, after being absent for so long, I didn't notice that it has already been created. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 17:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still committed to implementing S-line for the NYC subway, but I don't have a working prototype yet. Until I do, I'd like to ask if others support or oppose it, and if so, if there are any suggestions before I complete the prototpye. I realize the succession area will be significantly larger, but if readers can understand and navigate the system better because of the S-line, that has to outweigh that concern. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mountain View - Erie & DL&W or Erie only

Looking over the history for Mountain View station on NJ Transit, considering the Erie and Delaware, Lackawanna both had stations in Mountain View and Mountain View Tower connected the two. Now, should the Mountain View article focus on the Erie one (which is the actual station) or both?Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The focus should be on the Erie station, as it is the current station. A brief mention of the DLW station (which was called Wayne, not Mountain View, and was located east of the junction on what's now the Totawa Industrial Track), and the other Erie station (also called Wayne which was north (timetable west) of the junction on the no longer extant portion of the NYGL) would make sense, but it should be kept brief. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The DL&W station was called Wayne? :| - The Erie Wayne station was at Ryerson Avenue and became a flag stop. Want to make sure, but I don't remember seeing DL&W Mountain View being called Wayne.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 00:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, further checks make me believe I was wrong about the name for the Lackawanna station (but right about the locations), but the main thrust, that only a brief mention of the DL&W and other Erie station is really warranted, stands. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Whichever railroad the station was originally owned by, shouldn't there be new categories for stations along both railroads, not to mention some other former railroads in New Jersey? ----DanTD (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Subway station naming conventions

Why were these pages moved?

• Eighth Street – NYU (BMT Broadway Line) -> 8th Street – NYU (BMT Broadway Line)
• 42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway) -> Bryant Park subway complex
• 42nd Street – Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) -> 42nd Street – Bryant Park
• Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line) -> Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park

Current consensus is that the stations include the name on the [official map], plus the line name for disambiguation purposes. Numbers under ten are spelled out. Those stations that are connected by free transfer passageways are combined into a single article with (New York City Subway) at the end. I've notified the two users who made these moves to join this discussion. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Support - I support moving Eighth Street back to it's original title and merging the two stations at Bryant Park into 42nd Street – Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Restore previous names that were in line with existing project consensus on naming conventions.oknazevad (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was absolutely nothing wrong with the previous station names. and no sufficient reason has been advanced for the renaming. I agree with Acps110 about merger of the Fifth Ave. station article, which currently serves little purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As above. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - For Eighth versus 8th, let's ignore the project consensus for a moment. If in doubt, I always look for the MoS. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words, it says "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words." Now, it says that applies for the body of an article, but I see no reason not to extend it for article titles for this instance of NYC Subway stations. As for the station complex, it should be merged as per Acps110's suggestion. I can see where Jerzy's coming from, though. (Since the last two articles will likely be merged, discussion of WP:PRECISION can be raised some other time.) In short, it cannot just be "Bryant Park" because Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street are important elements, historically and common usage-wise, of the station [complex] and article title. So I support both suggestions. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose the 8th Street. If the MTA names the stations with numbers such as 8th Street and 5th Avenue, then why should we spell them out if that is not the correct name? Gryffindor (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Because that's not the current consensus. I don't want to have to update the entire project just to change every instance of One to 1, etc. I'm still cleaning up the mess that was made last summer when the consensus changed regarding spacing around endashes. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because there was consensus, it can still be wrong. Gryffindor (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how using ordinal numbers is "wrong" as you define it. Eighth is still 8th. Fifth is still 5th. They're both interchangeable, it's only a style thing. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I was about to say that the MTA favors brevity in its signage. Sometimes the abbreviations are constricting, or use numbers where words are better usage. For instance, the official name of the 8th Street station on the Broadway Line is "8 Street-New York University." I believe the article name was changed from "Eighth Street" to "8th Street," which I do believe is not its name, and shouldn't be as it is poor usage. MTA usage may be fine for subway maps and station signs, but I think an encyclopedia can use proper usage. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Other options

• Split Decision -- I also support moving Eighth Street - NYU Station back to it's original title, however, if the 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue Bryant Park stations were truly one station complex, and not just two separate stations with one big long connecting transfer, I'd see a reason for merging them into 42nd Street – Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Otherwise, I think they ought to be left alone. ----DanTD (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would have the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. The Fifth Ave. station is far less significant than the Sixth Ave. station. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If they're not the same station, they shouldn't be merged, plain and simple. ----DanTD (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my previous answer was confused. I agree with you. As a matter of fact, there is a separate article, Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line). Bryant Park subway complex is about both stations. I don't see the point of it, to be frank. Seems duplicative. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• If the Eighth Street station will be moved (back), should NYU be spelled out, making the title Eighth Street – New York University (BMT Broadway Line)? I would like to think that NYU is there only because there's no way "New York University" will fit. Think of City College, Columbia University, etc. and NYU is the odd one out. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Abbreviations should be spelled out in titles. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So I went and carried out the move to Eighth Street – New York University (BMT Broadway Line).oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another minor concern: for the complex, I believe the first en dash should be a slash because the platforms don't have the same name, resulting in 42nd Street / Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (New York City Subway). Tinlinkin (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If they genuinley are a complex, I can see something like this as being justified. Plus, I knew that hypothetically a slash should be in there somewhere. But should there be that much space between 42nd Street, the slash, and Fifth Avenue? ----DanTD (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:SLASH. Tinlinkin (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • That name is OK, but Sixth Avenue is missing. How about Bryant Park – 42nd Street / Fifth – Sixth Avenues (New York City Subway)? Neighborhood first, then the important street, with the cross streets after the slash. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing support for that name. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
        • This is interesting because 14th Street / Sixth – Seventh Avenues has the same problem. Both instances introduce an additional element to the article title that I'm not comfortable adding. Sixth and Seventh, respectively, are implied by the complexes' geographical locations and not really part of the complexes' names. Metropolitan/Lorimer would also introduce Union Avenue to the name by this logic. Also, Bryant Park is listed last in both individual stations' names, so listing it first appears inconsistent. Tinlinkin (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
          • As "Sixth Avenue" isn't part of either (sub)station's actual name, (it's part of the line name, but not the station name) there's no need to include it in the title of the combined article. The same applies to the 14th Street article. That complex consists of a station on the Sixth Ave line called "14th Street", one on the Seventh Ave line also called "14th Street", and one on the Canarsie Line called "Sixth Ave". The "Seventh Ave" portion should be removed from the title.oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So I'm going to do the station complex merge into Bryant Park subway complex first and then I will move that page to the name I suggested. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I did the merge, but further cleanup and double-checking is likely needed. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gladstone Branch line template

Hey, what's up with the map template in the infobox of the New Jersey Transit Gladstone Branch? No matter what you try to do with it, it only shows a non-descript broken line with connections to the Northeast Corridor and Long Island Rail Road. Yet, by itself, the template is in decent shape. ----DanTD (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, strange. It seems to be broken at Sunnyside Yard. But either way, I think the Morristown, Gladstone and Montclair-Boonton infobox templates need to be re-worked a bit so that the main stretch of the line lines up with Hoboken, not NYP, just for the historical and technical accuracy that Midtown Direct trains are diverting off of the M&E to get to the North River Tunnels. oknazevad (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the noinclude tags was misplaced, so I fixed that. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

G service on Queens Blvd

Per these two references,1 2 I have removed G service from the Queens Blvd templates, and removed the Queens Blvd line from the G service page. :-(

Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deer Park-Pineaire-Brentwood Station merger

Over on some railfan forum, I read that the Long Island Railroad originally planned to merge Deer Park (LIRR station), Pineaire (LIRR station), and Brentwood (LIRR station) into a single station complex, but Brentwood residents rallied against them, and they settled for merging just Deer Park and Pineaire. Anybody have any evidence of this besides on forums? ----DanTD (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For June 28, 2010

To make your lives easier in the meantime, I have set up User:Mitchazenia/NYCS navbox - July 2010 for the ready when the service changes on the M-V-W go in effect. Feel free to edit this.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

CRRLI article has finally arrived

I finally posted the article for the Central Railroad of Long Island, and I'm sorry to say the thing needs a lot of work. I've tagged the article for maps and cleanup, and I've even tried to reduce some of the repitition in the Central Branch (Long Island Rail Road) article without eliminating some important aspects of it, but it's still not enough. The original version of the Bushwick Branch article may or may not have been better than this. ----DanTD (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

More line template troubles

I recently noticed that the Template:Hudson Line (Metro-North)-infobox has a lot of closed stations, but one that's missing is the Croton North (NYCRR station)(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.206944,-73.894444&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=41.206944,-73.894444) which is currently on the National Register of Historic Places. Part of the problem is, I have no idea where this corresponds to the Fare Zone 5-6 border, the Croton Yards or the end of electrification.
In the mean time I'd also like to remove this quote;

This is a route-map template for a Long Island Rail Road line.

For information on use of this template, refer to Wikipedia:Route diagram template.

from more of the LIRR line templates, and place them on the sides where they belong. ----DanTD (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Any answers on how to take the quotes out of the LIRR templates? ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have done this, but please double check. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There's still the problem of this little wiki-marking ("|}"), but so far everything is moved... although I never saw your edits in the histories of some of them. ----DanTD (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a single edit to one of the transcluded templates common to the LIRR templates, and it looked like it worked. I wasn't sure if my first edit to Template:Long Beach Branch worked, so I reverted that. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Route maps from NJ Transit Station articles

I really feel, because of their sheer size, templates with the line's route map need to be removed from the station articles. They take up way too much space and make too much white space. The S-line template serves well and if people want that map, they could just go to the line article.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The only reason I could think of for having line articles in station, is when the station articles are too small. ----DanTD (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. They may have once been useful, but aren't needed any longer due to the S-line templates. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, they allow easy navigation within the line. Furthermore, they provide a non-cluttered overview of the line without less relevant features such as highway crossings. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way I'll budge on keeping them is if you make them horizontal and move them to the bottom of the article, as vertically they clutter, make image hell and are worthless.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You said above, "if people want that map, they could just go to the line article." Those route maps are terribly cluttered and hard to navigate. See for example {{NJTransit-Main-infobox}} and compare it to {{NJTransit-Main}}. It only gets worse for other lines like {{NJTransit-Montclair-Boonton-infobox}}. The value the simplified templates provide on station articles is navigation and a quick un-cluttered overview of the station's presence within the line. All right-aligned float divs provide image hell, I don't see how that is relevant. If you are proposing removing these templates from all of the station articles, then there will be no articles remaining to use it. Because of that, I believe the proper procedure is to use WP:TFD. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then like most navboxes, move them to the bottom and make it horizontal. It'll be so much easier to read and won't bust images, which causes articles to look messy.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that would be workable.. except that I don't see any examples of WP:TRAIL templates that are horizontal. How is it done? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think someone else who knows how to code can do it better. I can't code for crap. See if someone around here can code, if not I'll see who I can get.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on keeping/removing the route maps, though I am leaning towards removal because line navigation is not usually found in station articles and the route diagram template makes the most sense for railway lines, not stations. But is keeping the existing templates hidden by default an option? Or is creating new standard navboxes for each line desired? Tinlinkin (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think making them collapsed by default is workable. It would reduce the whitespace while still making them available for navigation. Perhaps for longer articles where whitespace isn't a concern, it can default to being shown. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Even thought I still think they should be removed from station articles, I'm starting to get some concerns. What will become of templates like Template:NJTransit-Main-Bergen? This is a template that has both lines. ----DanTD (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, this was created with the intention to be used on stations that are served by both Bergen and Main line trains (Ridgewood to Suffern). If this was to be removed from station articles, it would have no remaining use. If that is the intent, I would recommend the WP:TFD process. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kill'em; that is remove them from the station articles, where they indeed make ugly appearance for vanishingly small benefit. When they can be made to nestle neatly at the bottom of the article or otherwise behave more modestly, bring'em back. For TFD I offer no opinion. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim makes a good point. At this juncture, they're more cluttering than helpful. Also, I question the value of them if versions don't exist for the major stations (though I can only imagine what the versions for Secaucus, Hoboken or Newark Penn would look like). If the concern is that the versions at the individual line articles are too cluttered, then removing some of that excess detail is "The way to go™". (NJT's ad slogan, for those not actually in Jersey) oknazevad (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got two proposals with alternatives to removing and the status quo: 1. make them horizontal, 2. make them hidden by default. Is that not worth exploring? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta revive this discussion since another revert of DanTD on Ramsey (NJT station). We need to do something about these.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 10:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I removed this map and an anonymous IP revived it. ----DanTD (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus Service Changes-Preparation

To prepare for the MTA's changes in bus service effective 6/27/2010, I have created these pages:

Express
Nassau
Queens

A few questions/notes:

• Will the new Q15A branch to serve the northern part of the Q14 be 7-day or peak hours only?
• Now that the peak S52 is supposed to be rerouted into Clyde Place, will southbound Clyde Place trips loop around and continue on the current route?

Other boroughs will come soon.Train2104 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Staten Island I assumed that the S52 Clyde Place is a terminal.Train2104 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Train2104 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to prepare for the mass changes. But keep in mind that the Wikipedia bus list pages may change between now and June 27th. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mahattan
Brooklyn

The Brooklyn page is not complete, the Brownstone restructuring is not included yet. Could you please check for errors in all the pages?Train2104 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

All 7 pages complete. Train2104 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

SAS and 7 Extension stations

It's probably time to talk about the stations of the Second Avenue Subway and 7 Subway Extension. The three SAS stations and the 34th Street West Side station are being constructed so I think articles about them can be created now. So then, the naming. I propose:

• 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway)
• 86th Street (Second Avenue Subway)
• 72nd Street (Second Avenue Subway)
• 34th Street (IRT Flushing Line) (I do not know what the exact name of this station will be, but this seems appropriate.)

The reason I broke the rules by choosing "Second Avenue Subway" instead of "IND Second Avenue Line" (or "BMT Second Avenue Line") is because Second Avenue Subway is the popular name of the line, corresponds to the article name, and classifying by a division could be confusing to readers and possibly incorrect, especially since the extension is not considered to be an extension of an existing line (although technically it is) and the construction is post-unification merger. As 34th Street is an extension of an existing line, I have no problem with the "IRT Flushing Line" suffix. Feel free to discuss and debate.

As it stands now, the article Second Avenue Subway is quite convoluted and most of the material is dated. So I would like to request help when the 4 articles are created.

Also semi-related, Seaport (New York City Subway station) is up for deletion. Tinlinkin (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on the IND Second Avenue Line is named incorrectly, per our naming convention. The line will be chained as part of the IND and presumably use IND radio frequencies too. Once the line is extended to Houston Street and T service begins, those trains will most likely be supplied from the expanded IND Jamaica Yard and the non-revenue connection at 63rd Street. The common name 'Second Avenue Subway' should definitely become a redirect to the existing article if it is moved to another title. I oppose the station article using that nomenclature for naming, and propose that they use our project's existing naming convention, ie 72nd Street (IND Second Avenue Line).

As for the Flushing line extension, I support the name above for creation of that article. Once it is made clear what the MTA intends to call the station, that article can be moved to its proper name. (Because it is a terminal station, I expect them to add the neighborhood to it.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The links to stations at the Second Avenue Subway article are named (IND Second Avenue Line), and I didn't pay attention to that before. I don't really reject "IND Second Avenue Line", but as Second Avenue Subway is by far the most popular name, it will be hard to shake off the perception that "IND" gives, since the IND has been abolished for some time now. A frequent comment I notice when reading forums is the surprise (apprehensiveness?) that the 3 divisions remain in the article names. Tinlinkin (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

57th Street - Sixth Ave station

Why is this station 57th Street – Sixth Avenue listed as being on the IND Sixth Avenue Line? Should it be moved to the IND 63rd Street Line? I can accept that it was a part of the Sixth Avenue line prior to 1989; however it has been connected to the rest of the 63rd Street line since then. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on where the dividing line between the two lines technically is. It may be that the station is still technically part of the IND Sixth Avenue Line, even after the building of the 63rd St line, which would make it correct. (The surest way to check is to actually go to the station and check for the red-orange sign that shows the nearest emergency exit from the platforms. There's one on each platform, and they identify the station by name, old division and line name.)oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I had always been under the impression that the 63rd Street line began at the beginning of the extension north of 57th Street.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Most underground stations have those signs, but they are missing in some stations that I don't recall at the moment. Unfortunately, they don't have those signs on elevated stations, not from what I could notice. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I passed by the station a few days ago and read the red-orange sign. It is a Sixth Avenue Line IND station. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Passenger stats @ LIRR stations

An anonymous IP(User:69.250.125.60) is adding passenger traffic at various Long Island Rail Road stations. While I applaud his or her efforts, it seems like some of the stats might be outdated and incomplete. Would anybody be willing to keep an eye on this activity? ---DanTD (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the post from the Transport Politic, which points to a forum that provides statistics from 2006. I would prefer the MTA to post ridership à la the subway station ridership statistics, but I haven't seen that. I don't have all the LIRR stations in my watchlist yet, and I am not making that a high priority for me at this time unfortunately. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken roll sign

I just found out that the original roll sign for the 3 train is broken([9]). That link on the left is what it should look like, apparently. ----DanTD (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Something strange about that. When I click on the file I get the image. A problem at Commons?ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I should ask over there. ----DanTD (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done UPDATE - It was a problem at the Commons, and I fixed it. Apparently it was misidentified as a *.php image, when it was actually a *.gif image. ----DanTD (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Set NJ Transit s-rail to use the Boonton Line separate from the Montclair-Boonton Line

I think the title says for itself what I am looking for Benson Street (NJT station), Rowe Street (NJT station), Arlington (NJT station) and when to be created, North Newark (NJT station). Its rather confusing to have it set up as the Montclair-Boonton Line when in reality it wasn't. Should the two lines be separate in s-rail?Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 12:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to this. Just use the Boonton Line pipe link in the s-line. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

St. George Ferry Terminal and SIR station

I am proposing to merge the Saint George (Staten Island Railway station) article into St. George Ferry Terminal. Please use Talk:St. George Ferry Terminal for further discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed page move

I've proposed that the BMT Canarsie Line automation page is no longer at the right title. That article is being expanded to include the automation of the IRT Flushing Line. Please go to Talk:BMT Canarsie Line automation for the discussion. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a move of Gravesend – 86th Street (BMT Sea Beach Line) to 86th Street (BMT Sea Beach Line); see the talk page to discuss. (Posting here to avoid starting a new thread.) Tinlinkin (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bellmouth

I see the word "bellmouth" in and only in a lot of the NY subway station articles. Is this term accurate for what I think it is, a section of unused tunnel? Tinlinkin (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A "bellmouth" is the opening at one end of a tunnel, particularly a round one (picture a bell sitting on it's side to get an idea of the image behind the name). As it is often dug out first, anytime a tunnel is started and not finished there is a good chance that there is a bellmouth that leads nowhere. oknazevad (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I was looking up the definition, all I found were references to pipes, and I wasn't thinking of a tunnel as one. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries

To solve the issues over the gallery tag, which is the adaptation to different screen sizes, I used {{Gallery}} and it works well. I won't have time to do the conversions soon, so I'm posting the message here. (I'm also using my new computer, so I really notice the difference over the old format.) Tinlinkin (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More subway complex merges

While we're on the subject of merges, I propose to do this merge, one that I wanted to do before:

• Metropolitan Avenue (IND Crosstown Line) & Lorimer Street (BMT Canarsie Line) → Metropolitan Avenue / Lorimer Street (New York City Subway) Lorimer Street / Metropolitan Avenue (New York City Subway) (notice the slash as opposed to an en dash; ordering changed from original: see below)

I feel comfortable with the Metropolitan/Lorimer ordering as opposed to the other way around, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I was persuaded...

On a related note, I will create the category Category:New York City Subway transfer stations because I've realized that, despite previous reservations, station complexes that are classified in both Category:New York City Subway stations and Category:New York City Subway stations in Manhattan make no sense. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I am of two minds on this proposal and the above Bryant Park one as well. On one hand, the existance of the pedestrian tunnels connecting the platforms means that one doesn't have to leave fare control to transfer, making them essentially one station from a pasenger standpoint. On the other hand, they retain distinct names and are marked by separate dots on the official map, though connected by straight lines representing the passageways.

I believe there is prescedent for leaving them separate, namely the existance of a separate 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) station article. That station is connected to 42nd Street – Times Square (New York City Subway) by a pedestrian tunnel within fare control, so if that is the standard which we decide upon, the 8th Ave line station would have to be merged as well.

My other question is, what does the MTA consider them?oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost every inter-division transfer station is considered 2+ stations by the MTA. The map also takes some liberties in representation: at Atlantic/Pacific, look how the B/Q is lumped in with the 2/3/4/5. But we have combined station articles on the basis of easy-to-reference names, essentially. The subarticles of List of New York City Subway stations now clearly identify what stations are station complexes but what the MTA counts as individual stations. The Times Square complex (not including PABT) the MTA says are four stations. Another thing to keep in mind, the MTA's official map is only one representation of the subway system. Other subway maps may offer different perspectives on the transfers, but I would have to look them up. Tinlinkin (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my main concern was to highlight an inconsistancy that we may have to address in the future. As for the MTA map vs others, the others are not always up-to-date or correctly descriptive on things like transfers. It just makes the most sense to go to a primary source (which the MTA map is) vs a secondary source to establish the nature of these things. oknazevad (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I too feel this may become a problem in the future. I think a mixed solution similar to what we had before worked best. Use the map, and tidy up names for Wikipedia standards. If the map proves problematic, defer to the strip maps, and follow the same process. That way we avoid crossing the original research line, having articles with unwieldy titles which in turn ends the need to maintain hundreds of redirects. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support this merger, Metropolitan first then Lorimer. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Additional Comment. It should probably be Lorimer / Metropolitan, if only for alphabetical order, unless the Crosstown Line portion is that much more heavily used station or referenced name. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment on the comment: Metropolitan first because it is the more important street, per the naming convention. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • As a cross street on the surface, Metro Avenue is the main street when compared to Lorimer. But picking up on oknazevad's comment, I have reason to believe Lorimer is the more heavily-used platform for people entering and not transferring. The L goes to Manhattan while the G does not; so if traffic goes to the business district (Manhattan), the L has the higher traffic. I also use the L frequently and the G less so, therefore I also have my observations. What sealed the deal for me is the station ridership page, which lists the complex as Lorimer/Metropolitan. (The WP convention was created before the first station ridership figures were first publicly posted in 2008.) So I support this version now. Tinlinkin (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'm now persuaded to order it the other way. Go ahead with the merge. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support as Metropolitan Avenue-Lorimer Street. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why you support that format? Tinlinkin (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:SLASH seems to discourage usage of slashes. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I was thinking of why you support the Metro/Lorimer ordering, though. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Metropolitan Avenue is the busier street. It's not a deal breaker though. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. However, I believe the naming convention states that we use the slash and not use the spaces (e.g. Metropolitan Avenue/Lorimer Street). —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 17:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia Manual of Style for spaced slashes overrides whatever we may have said before about slashes and spacing. I have not moved existing pages affected by that style convention since this, but I may begin doing that next week so that everything is consistent, unless anyone raises any objections. I also repeat that I strongly believe Lorimer Street is the more important station in the complex and thus should be first. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Excellent! A return to consistency in regards to spacing would be great, and a much needed cleanup. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That guideline makes me want to raise this question: What is the reasoning for the preference of a slash over a dash? It says to avoid using slashes whenever possible. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It does, but I think any alternative for the slash in this case will be inadequate and/or incorrect. Station complexes: are they one station or two+ stations? (To my slight but pervasive annoyance, the MTA says the latter; guidelines for other metro systems say the former.) Unless both station platforms share the same name, the slash is the more accurate usage than the dash to describe the complex. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So I'm going to do the merge to Lorimer Street / Metropolitan Avenue (New York City Subway) in a few hours tomorrow. I will move the other pages next week. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge is done! Tinlinkin (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The slash pages (except for the recent station complex pages) have been moved. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Defunct SIR station ID

I put a pic of stonework into Livingston (Staten Island Railway station). This is in eastern Livingston, halfway between the abundantly stoneworked Snug Harbor Station and Bard Avenue. I'm thinking maybe my File:Bard Av SIRT jeh.JPG actually depicts the western part of the Livingston Station site, while my stonework ramp is an alternate, unlisted (older?) Snug station. Anybody got a clue? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but in File:Livingston Stn SIRT jeh.JPG, are the tracks paved over with an asphalt path? Other comments: I love the Bard Av. picture showing the Bayonne Bridge, but how were you able to get down there? Tinlinkin (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question answered during the meetup. (Thanks, Jim!) Tinlinkin (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the article on NJT route 981?

There is an article about NJT route 981 here: 981 Port Liberte-Grove Street

The article is near-orphaned, and now that the bus route is history, what do you think should be done about it? There is no history entry on the WHEELS page to redirect it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you add this to something on former routes? ----DanTD (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more subway complex merges

User:DReifGalaxyM31 has taken it upon his/herself to merge station complexes. Whether the user was inspired by the recent merges, we don't know. But I am highly annoyed that the merges were done without coordination from the project and other users. (At least the user has the consideration to point to the correct section of articles.) To summarize:

Since User:DReifGalaxyM31 has merged 3 times and is planning to do another one, I am bringing up the remaining station complexes that have not been merged yet. Therefore all of them can be brought up for discussion. In principle, I support having station complexes as one page so there would be no redundancies with other pages and sections about the station complex itself can be created. Please use the sections below to share your thoughts.

I am not going to clean up the merges that have been created, just in case other users disagree with merging any of them. (They must be reconciled with cut-and-paste repair.) Lastly, setting up this post took a lot of time away from other things I wanted to do here, because my time at Wikipedia will be limited. Tinlinkin (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support merging

Use this section to support merging the individual stations into one page, your rationale and to what titles.

• Support #1, #2, #3 to List of NYCS transfer stations name; #5 to Broadway – Lafayette Street / Bleecker Street (New York City Subway) because Broadway/Lafayette is the dominant station (express vs. local); #9 to Jay Street – Borough Hall / Lawrence Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway) because Jay Street is the dominant station. For #1 I could also support Lexington Avenue – 53rd Street / 51st Street. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge decisions above. I don't think that the Jay Street - Borough Hall/Lawrence Street - Metro Tech article should be created until the two stations are connected by the under-construction transfer.DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support in two parts
  • part 1 - The existing mergers were rather BOLD, but simplify page maintenance considerably. I don't like their current names and would like them to be moved to the title they have on the List of New York City Subway transfer stations page per the naming convention for the project.
  • part 2 - I also support 1 through 9 above EXCEPT 7 for simplification. Keep in mind that the naming convention#Additional guidelines for station complexes section asks to construct any links as if the station were a stand-alone entity. The important part is that those links are a redirect to the proper section on the combined page. Each section has an infobox with station succession and progression, for easy navigation.
    • For example, even though 42nd Street-PABT is not technically part of the Times Square complex; it is a single fare control and passengers freely flow from one line to another. Even if the free transfer passageway didn't exist, Unlimited Metrocard makes it a free transfer and passengers would still use it as such, because of it's location in Midtown and lack of easy transfers to the Eighth Ave line elsewhere. Go ahead and merge it into the Times Square article. That won't affect how easy or hard it is to find the information because all of the Eighth Ave line information will still point to 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line) (link not piped for clarity). Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • One additional comment - I am also very annoyed that these mergers were carried out boldly because I have previously placed two messages on his talk page asking for discussion before page moves or mergers. There is NO deadline! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Argeed. I don't understand why the user wants to rush the merging. At worst, if the articles remained separate, anything that refers to the transfer between platforms/stations can be mentioned in each of the articles. They were considered separate stations before and the MTA still does consider them that way. I have no problem with the individual articles, even though that is inefficient. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support for #6. The IND station may not be in the Times Square complex, but it is connected via an in-system transfer corridor. (see User:DReifGalaxyM31/Times Square - 42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway) for page outcome) For future use if approved.DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merging

Use this section to oppose merging the individual stations into one page.

• Oppose #7. The Lexington/59th complex is not physically connected to the Lexington/63rd station (the only connection the two stations have is an out-of-system MetroCard transfer), so a merge would not make sense. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Far too many of these merged stations aren't the complexes this user is claiming they are. I wasn't even pleased with the merger of 42nd Street – Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) and Fifth Avenue – Bryant Park (IRT Flushing Line). The only ones I agree with are 23rd Street – Ely Avenue / Court Square (New York City Subway) and Jay Street – Borough Hall / Lawrence Street (New York City Subway), but only when they're genuinely converted into the complexes that the MTA wants them to be. ----DanTD (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What is different about the Court Square and the Jay/Lawrence complexes than the other sets of stations? The MTA will still count them as separate stations. To be precise, the number of 468 stations will not decrease once the passageways are opened. Case in point: the most recent, South Ferry – Whitehall Street has not decreased the 468 number. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Other discussion

This space is for further discussion on the subject.

• I am undecided as to what names #4, #6 and #8 should be merged to (i.e. what combinations should comprise the name), but I would prefer them to be merged. I am leaning towards the List of NYCS transfer stations name for #4 per previous discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• For #6, proposed name of Times Square - 42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway). Both the big complex and the IND station have the 42nd Street in the name. It also reflects upon where in the name the street name is shown. My version of the merge is under construction for approval. It can be found here: User:DReifGalaxyM31/Times Square - 42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway). DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding Port Authority Bus Terminal to the existing Times Square article title. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • PABT is the landmark of the 8th Avenue station, I would have thought it would figure into the article title somewhere. I am not too happy with the Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street (New York City Subway) title myself, but I'm not going to make a fuss over that at the moment. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Another comment: I provided the names at List of New York City Subway transfer stations. (I went by what the article titles were at the time and the order of which stations are presented in the list. I believe they are ordered by the first station opened, but I'm not 100% sure, therefore I don't agree with all the names given from that list. I would love this to be the first featured list from this project, but I'm having trouble finding additional sources.) Those names are not set in stone, and should not be used as guidelines for naming, unless any of you agree with them. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• I hate to be a nag, but I feel as if I'm at wits end here. Is there a reasoning behind all these merges? Even if a station is considered a "complex", there is no agreed clear definition of what a complex is. A serious discussion needs to had about this. In addition, Is there any logic used for the combined names, or are they picked because they sound "nice"? Some of these are rather unwieldy and are getting rather ridiculous, for the lack of a better word. Some of these mergers need to reconsidered, since some of these titles are blatant violations of site-wide naming conventions (Case in point: Why does Bleecker Street/Broadway-Lafayette Street exist, when Broadway-Lafayette Street/Bleecker Street sees more usage amongst the populace and the MTA themselves?). We should probably reign this in before someone else (and I mean a deletionist) does it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the need to name carefully, lest we become too creative and start inventing ficticious names. But I would say the definition of a station complex is pretty straightforward. If a set of stations has a single, large fare control area, where a passenger can transfer without having to leave and re-swipe back in, it's a station complex. That's why the merge of 59th on the Lex and Lex on the 63rd is a mistake, as that requires a reswipe. Ditto with 45 Rd on the Flushing and the LIC/Courthouse Sq on the Crosstown, as that requires an out-of-system transfer (for now, at least).oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two conflicting schools of thought when it comes to the subway station complexes: article content and article naming. I don't have time to write a full response now, but on the surface, a consolidated article appears to be best, while naming considerations would be dealt with separately. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

I think there is a consensus to merge most of the articles, except for the Court Square complex (8), Lexington/59th & Lexington/63rd (7), and the Jay/Lawrence complex under construction (9). Next, I requested cut and paste repair for the first three (and they are done), and then I will clean up those articles later today or tomorrow. The remaining three I haven't decided on the course of action yet other than they will be merged. But I urge users to not do the merges as I have more experience in merging. Article naming is still open for discussion, but the first three articles are now at the list of transfer stations name. (I'm feel rather sleepy so that's all I have to say for now. The comments by the administrator at WP:SPLICE, who I think I can recall from the Wikimedia meetup, are interesting and I'll reply to him later today.) Tinlinkin (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All move actions are delayed until at least Friday, June 4th. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing former/closed subway stations

I ask a question with examples: does a closed station like City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) belong in Category:New York City Subway stations in Manhattan? How about a former el station like Reid Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) into Category:New York City Subway stations in Brooklyn? Tinlinkin (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed stations, maybe; demolished stations, no. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, maybe we should separate closed/demolished/abandoned stations by Borough. ----DanTD (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I say be careful of overcategorization, though. The number of closed/demolished/abandoned stations isn't so great, especially when compared to the number of open stations, that a borough breakdown isn't really needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct in that after June 1940, the number of closed or demolished stations was few. But before then, all the demolished elevated lines each had quite a number of stations. I don't know whether to say those stations were part of the current New York City Subway, but they were certainly legacy stations. One pro-argument is that they were all owned by the city, so by extension they were part of the subway. But I don't want to make that judgment call without others' opinions. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed redirect

Over on the List of Long Island Rail Road stations there's a former station named Atlantic Avenue (LIRR station) that redirects to Atlantic Terminal. I don't buy it for a second, first, because there's no evidence that the former Flatbush Avenue (LIRR station) ever had that name, and second, because it's shown to have been on the Long Beach Branch. The only Atlantic Avenue that has anything to do with the Long Beach Branch is near East Rockaway (LIRR station), and so far I can't find any evidence such a station ever existed there(although I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility). ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right on the naming of the Flatbush Ave. station. See this map from 1889. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but as for Atlantic Avenue station, maybe an Atlantic Avenue station existed on the Long Beach Branch at one time. Apparently TrainsAreFun claims that one existed in Island Park, New York, but I don't see any street on Island Park or Barnum Island named Atlantic Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There may have been one, but the entry for Atlantic Ave. on the former station list can't redirect to Atlantic Terminal. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the current redirtect should be deleted. If not, then redirected to the Long Beach Branch article itself. ----DanTD (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think redirecting to the branch seems best. Someone at one point said that the station closed in 1951. I'm assuming there was some basis for that assertion. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. And if any info on Atlantic Avenue Station does turn up, it'll probably be best to redirect it again to the nearest existing station article. ----DanTD (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it

Courtesy of the Unofficial LIRR History website and their 1948 map. It was between East Rockaway and Oceanside Stations and not on Island Park at all. ----DanTD (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Avenue is a street in East Rockaway. (I know from recalling the LI Bus map from memory.) The East Rockaway station is on a diagonal between Atlantic Avenue and Ocean Avenue. It's possible that the current East Rockaway station is replacement of the original station and Atlantic Avenue station, but that's only a conjecture.

As for the original redirect, it's possible, but unlikely, that people will mistake the name of the previously-named Flatbush Avenue station for Atlantic Avenue after coming from the Atlantic Avenue subway station. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also in Oceanside, Baldwin Harbor, and Freeport, although it's split between Trinity Street in Oceanside and Brower Avenue, which it turns into when it crosses the Baldwin Harbor/Oceanside Line. I've not only seen maps of the road, I've driven on it, most recently during one of my trips up north. This was the day I snapped that pic of Island Park that I used to replace Jim Henderson's in the infobox. On the issue of the station itself, if it wasn't on Atlantic Avenue, it had to be pretty close to it. After all, Centre Avenue isn't necessarily located on Centre Avenue. I may have to send an e-mail from some historic society or library in East Rockaway to find out what the story is behind this. ----DanTD (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another unresolved Long Beach Branch issue

While there's still a thread about the Long Beach Branch, Is there anybody with any info on the Long Beach Branch previously sharing trackage with the Montauk and West Hempstead Branches? I've read a few things about this line going there as far back as the late-1950's, and a few things about it on Main Line station articles between Jamaica and Rockaway Junction, but I can't find too much else on when it was moved there, or realigned to the Atlantic Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Seyfried's notes confirm Atlantic Avenue station history

I just photocopied a few pages from the Vincent Seyfreid notes on LIRR history, and they confirm that Atlantic Avenue (LIRR station) was an existing station that was too close to East Rockaway (LIRR station), and was merged into East Rockaway. ----DanTD (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus route tables for June 27

Noting that there will be massive reroutings and deletions on the MTA bus network on June 27, I am preparing new articles, but am currently storing them in my sandbox until the date comes, at which time, new articles will be ready. That way, one major edit can be done. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful you don't needlessly duplicate efforts with the draft articles linked in the above section.oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

R211 car order

The MTA has named the car designation that will replace the R46s when they turn 40 years old...the R211. I created a stub article for it R211 based on the information here for proof (go to page 20).

I will edit the rolling stock navbox based on this new information given. Thanks. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 05:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Subway bullet deletion from commons

Sadly, I initiated a deletion discussion of the current NYCS bullets at Wikimedia Commons. I believe they are all right under fair use, but not as public domain images, as explained in the link to the deletion discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion about the subway bullets and the service icons back in 2006. Putting a letter/number in a circle/diamond is not enough to identify authorship due to its simplicity. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember this discussion, but I have to agree with Imdanumber1. This is just an asinine decision on the part of the MTA. Worse than firing railroad station employees and replacing them with ticket vending machines that only work part of the time, and I already placed my vote today. ----DanTD (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vincent F. Seyfried's LIRR History

Over in the Wikisources page, I don't see all the volumes of The Long Island Rail Road: a comprehensive history. There are actually seven of them, as you can see here. ----DanTD (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting User:NE2 to see if he is willing (or able) to continue transcribing the remaining volumes? And are those remaining volumes copyrighted, since they were published after 1964 I presume? Tinlinkin (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, NE2 is considering leaving Wikipedia. I suppose he got tired of all the crap that goes on here. I've certainly had my share of disagreements with him myself. As for the sources, I thought they were published in 1961. ----DanTD (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the info I got about the Long Beach Branch's Atlantic Avenue Station, as well as some more details on the two Arverne Stations of the Far Rockaway Branch came from Volume 5. I looked for that volume on Amazon.com, and they don't have it, although they do have more volumes than are listed on Wikisource. Patchogue-Medford Library, on the other hand, has all seven, but I'm not going to be reading them any time soon, because tomorrow I'm going to drive back home to Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If Volume 2 was published in 1963 (as I remember from a few days ago), unless he wrote the subsequent volumes very quickly, they would have to be published after 1963 and would be under copyright laws. (Again, take this from somebody who only has an elementary knowledge of copyright laws.) Stony Brook University, my alma mater, has a collection of documents relating to the LIRR which were donated by Mr. Seyfried. I think you can search for it yourself: just try to look for the home page of the university's library and search for the collection there. I would love to look at the collection, but I have not had the time. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I know of Stony Brook's reputation with Long Island-related history collection, but unfortunatley while I was up in the tri-state area, I missed the chance to do research there again. Sadly, I've been back in Florida since June 23. ----DanTD (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Harrison (PATH station); PRR before H&M?

One of the two images of the Harrison (PATH station) contains a Pennsylvania Railroad logo at the street entrance. Does this mean it was a PRR Station before it was claimed by the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad? Somebody should add a history chapter to the station in order to clear it up. ----DanTD (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. It was a PRR station, but the PRR service didn't end when the H&M started serving there. There was period of time when both railroads used the exact same tracks between the Passaic River and Journal Square. (Remember, the H&M was essentially controlled by the Pennsy.) The H&M then dropped underground to head into the city, while the PRR went to Exchange Place (PRR station). That's why there's still catenary supports over that stretch of tracks (to support the Pennsy operations to Exchange Place) and, at least as much as any current track connection, why the PATH is still subject to FRA oversight to this day.

I'd love to add this in, but this was just off the top of my head from years of absorption, and I couldn't actually cite any sources. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I recently added a PRR category that is currently hidden. I hope none of you mind if I expose it. ----DanTD (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds so horribly wrong...oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So the Category:Stations along Pennsylvania Railroad lines shouldn't be there? ----DanTD (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's right, afaik. I was making a lame attempt at humor (indecent exposure). Maybe my mind is just in the gutter. oknazevad (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Broken Redirects

With the gradual implementation of the new bus lists for the June 27 service cuts, there will be many broken redirects for the discontinued routes. What should we do about these? Delete them or redirect them to the discontinued/former routes table? Train2104 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that makes sense is to redirect to the discontinued/former routes table. They don't need to be deleted (one reason: there's a bureaucracy behind that). Tinlinkin (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Complete, div tags added to the discontinued route charts. Train2104 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Q38 article/Queens Route Template

I have just discovered this template:

{{queens bus routes}}

It is seriously out of date, and is only transcluded on one page, the Q38 bus article. The Q38 is also the only Queens bus route article not to redirect to the row in the list. The article doesn't provide much historical information either, and most of it is just a detailed route and travel path description.

I think that the template should be deleted and the article returned to its creation state as a redirect. Opinions? Train2104 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. The vast majority of bus routes are not notable enough for an independent article, and the Q38 certainly fits that bill. (Id almost venture to say none are, as even the ones that replaced streetcars decades ago are unlikely to actually ply the exact same route after all these years, and therefore only have a tenuous connection to their predecessors.) Likewise, having a navbox that merely lists a bunch o redirects that all lead to the same article is utterly pointless and, if I'm not mistaken, a candidate for speedy deletion.oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I returned the Q38 to redirect state, but I need to do more research about navigating the bureaucracy to delete the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Template put up for normal deletion. Train2104 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

NYSW or NYS&W title?

There seems to be a discrepancy between the titles of the two articles of New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad station articles. The Susquehanna Transfer article uses an ampersand between S and W while the Hawthorne one does not. Which should be standard? My opinion is dump both and spell out the entire name, headache to pronounce or not, its still correct.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I was going to complain that it would be too long, as long as appropriate redirects, such as the existing titles are created, I can see using the whole thing. Except, do we use "Railway" or "Railroad", as the current use of railway in the full name is relatively recent, iinm, dating from when D&O bought it out of bankruptcy? oknazevad (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd follow the NYSW website, which cites it as Railway for every station that stands to this date (Sparta, Pompton Lakes, Butler, Newfoundland, Wyckoff, Wortendyke, Maywood, Hawthorne, etc). Susquehanna Transfer hasn't seen a train in several decades, probably back when it was still known as Railroad.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering none of those has seen a passenger train in decades (outside of a few special excursions like the Toys-for-Tots train last year) and that we're talking about passenger trains, I don't think the using the modern freight railway's name is the right move. It's not like the modern Suzy-Q stops at those stations on a regular basis go deliver goods. Modern freight railroading doesn't work like that. Heck, the NYSW probably doesn't own any of the actual buildings anymore. Or, let's look at it another way, the Q essentially controls the former Lackawanna Syracuse Branch now. Does that mean that any standing passenger stations along that line should be labeled (New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway station)? No, because the modern NYSW never served them. While the former NYSW stations in New Jersey might have a bit fuzzier of a distinction, it is one that must be made. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can go for that. I just have a problem with all of these abbreviated names for railroads, especially if they aren't technically correct (NJT for example). I think for fairness, people might understand the articles better that way. I know with my DL&W and Erie work, I am not using ERR or DL&WRR since both are not necessary and I have no sources saying either would apply that well.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See, I've never had any problem with "NJT". Sure it may not be the official AAR reporting mark (which is "NJTR"), but then neither is "LIRR" ("LI" being the official one there). And while fully saying "New Jersey Transit" or "NJ Transit" (NJ pronounced as letters) may be more common, it is used commonly, both inside and, from the parts I've seen, outside the railfan community. oknazevad (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now Butler's article has been moved to Butler (NYS&W station). As far as I know, Butler, Maywood, Hawthorne and Susquehanna Transfer have articles. We should try to get consensus to one naming style. I'd also like to see if Vreeland Avenue is deserving of an article. The structure still stands (like a number of Susquehanna stations) and is proposed for usage by the Passaic-Bergen Rail Line, if that ever happens.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Defunct station & route locations

I think that we need to be more precise in providing the routes and station locations for defunct transit lines. These are not always accurately or precisely given. I have an old 1935 NYC Red Book, which will help, but that only covers Manhattan and the Bronx. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, because while you're at it, I've got an unfinished station list for the LIRR Bushwick Branch available in my sandbox, which ought to be added to the article. The only thing keeping me from finishing it is the possibility that some of the stations might've been shared by other lines, and I don't want to eliminate anything that may've been both Bushwick and Bay Ridge or Bushwick and Montauk, or something else. Would anybody be willing to take this over and settle this issue once and for all? ----DanTD (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my old Red Book covers only Manhattan and the Bronx. But within those parameters it seems to be comprehensive. It has a list of piers and hospitals, among other interesting tidbits. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lackawanna Cut-Off articles

I know we try not to cover proposed stations, but as a result for the Lackawanna Cut-Off, do we want to write articles for the following: Tobyhanna, East Stroudsburg, Delaware Water Gap, Blairstown, Andover and Greendell? I know Gouldsboro still stands, but that falls under Gouldsboro (Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad station), since NJ Transit won't use it. The next question would be what naming convention would be used for Greendell and does it have enough detail for creating an article. Thoughts?Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 18:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Metro-North S line boxes

Was just thinking on this. Stations along the Hudson and Harlem lines have split route succession boxes, with separate listings for locals and expresses. I think this is a bad idea. It seems to me that, unlike the subway, there's far too many different permutations of stopping patterns on commuter rail, and that they change too often, for neat splits such as these to work. For example, the succession boxes at Tarrytown (Metro-North station) lists Yonkers as the next stop for express trains towards Grand Central. But a quick glance of the current Hudson Line schedule shows no AM peak trains with that service pattern, and only a handful of PM off-peaks actually going straight from Tarrytown to Yonkers (many stop at Hastings).

In short, "typical" generalizations aren't necessarily all that typical and attempting to cover differing service permutations seems unnecessary. I think readers would be better served by a straight succession of all stations along the line. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In principal you're probably right, although it's disappointing to see the presence of local and express listings go. I suppose if we kept these for the Hudson and Harlem Lines, we should add them for the LIRR's Montauk Branch. Could it be possible that whoever added these based his/her information on old and/or long-standing distinctions between local and express services? ----DanTD (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right about the distinctions being made based on older service patterns. Which only highlights that they are too easily changed for inclusion here.oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For the Hudson line, they should be removed because every train practically has different stopping patterns. However, for the Harlem Line, this might work, but redesignated "Typical Express": GCT-125-White Plains-North White Plains-every stop to Southeast except Mt Pleasant. Train2104 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is the use of the qualifying "typical" only highlights the inherently inconsistent and variable nature of commuter rail scheduling. That's why I'm going to take them out.oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

JC rail embankments

Yeah, it isn't in NYC but I just uploaded some Jersey City pix to commons:Category:Former railway lines in New Jersey and maybe someone familiar with these abandoned lines can provide identifications or other useful information. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Move TBTA article?

Given that Wikipedia policy encourages the use of common names, do you think that moving Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to MTA Bridges and Tunnels over the redirect is a good idea? All the other articles (NYCT, LIRR, LIB, MNRR) use their dba names. Train2104 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

>2 weeks passed, no comment, move commencing. Train2104 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I'd noticed this earlier, as TBTA is far more commonly used. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. In general usage, such as a newspaper like the Times or Daily News, the TBTA name is rarely used anymore. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just used in the Daily News three days ago. See Google News. True, MTA B&T is also used. As the official name, I would think it would take precedence. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

NYCPT image count updates

I've been looking at Category:New York City public transportation articles needing images from time to time, and when I found an image of Allerton Avenue (IRT White Plains Road Line) a few days ago, I added it to that article, which brough the image count down to 188. Until I added some images to Hampton Bays (LIRR station) this morning, it was up to 190. So what is being added to this category? ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Flushing and North Side Railroad

The Flushing and North Side Railroad finally has an article. Do with it what you will. ----DanTD (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maywood Station Museum or Maywood (NYS&W)

Temporarily I've set Maywood (NYS&W station) to redirect to Maywood Station Museum. However, I have to ask, in continuation of above, do we want to move the article to the Maywood (NYS&W station) title?Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's good where it is. Its a more unique nme that doesn't require a prentheticl dismbiguator.oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think unless another Maywood Station Museum turns up, the existing article should stay as it is. And this is coming from a guy who worked on a Maywood (Metra) station article. ----DanTD (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LIRR templates on other railroad articles

Does anybody think the {{Long Island Rail Road}} can be added to railroads that were acquired by the LIRR, since it includes those railroads? While we're at it, why isn't the NY&MB on that list? ----DanTD (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're on the template, then including the template is an appropriate navigational aid, I think. After all, it is quite conceivable that someone will want to jump from the Brooklyn and Jamaica to the Central Railroad of Long Island.oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

IRT Eastern Parkway Line bullets

I just created a series of bullets for the IRT Eastern Parkway Line infobox(File:NYCS-line-trans-black-EastPkwy.png), but I have a feeling this violates a dozen copyright regulations. So can anybody make a better version that doesn't? ----DanTD (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those copyright tags are fine for subway bullets. This should be in SVG format, though. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't make anything in SVG format, especially after I carried out a failed attempt to read them and screwed up the icons for them on my PC. ----DanTD (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Separately designating LTD routes?

Should bus routes that have a local and limited pattern be separately designated? IP 24.189.91.116 (talk) has been adding the LTD designation to various articles. I have reverted the ones on the list of bus routes in xxx articles, but I will leave the subway stations up to you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some unused LIRR RDT's

These LIRR templates are not used, why were they pulled?

{{Atlantic Branch}}
{{City Terminal Zone LIRR}}

Also, I added {{Hempstead Branch}} back to Hempstead Branch, but I can't seem to figure out why there is an extra |} at the bottom. Train2104 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of these templates messed up the articles, or became messed up within the articles. Right now, the one for the Atlantic Branch is shrunken and broken. I had to put the |} for the Hempstead Branch, back because it put the standard text("This is a route-map template for a Long Island Rail Road line. For information on use of this template, refer to Wikipedia:Route diagram template.") inside the map itself. ----DanTD (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and TfD the Atlantic and City Terminal ones? The City Zone one is way too wide. Train2104 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'd rather see them fixed. Also, the width of the City Terminal Zone template might be appropriate. ----DanTD (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to fix up the Atlantic Branch one, as it's a physical line. I started with updating a link, but there's more to do there. Unfortunately, I'm lousy at such templates.

But the City Terminal Zone one can and should go. The City Terminal Zone is not a line but a descriptor of a group of three lines, and only for the portion west of Jamaica. Each line has its own article, and that is where the respective line diagrams belong. The City Terminal Zone article already has an appropriate chart that describes the service patterns (which, as it is a branding, not a physical line, is the best descriptor.)oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I fixed them, it's because there's an extra |} in the template {{LIRR-footer}}, and that should belong in the line template itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jamaica – Van Wyck incorrect coordinates

The coordinates given for Jamaica – Van Wyck (IND Archer Avenue Line) are wrong. They place the station at Hillside Avenue(NY 25) and Sutphin Boulevard, the same intersection as Sutphin Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line). ----DanTD (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I put in new coordinates, just don't use the big "View Location in Google Maps" link on the GeoHack page. The Google Maps entry in the table should work, though. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Metro-North train ID

Simple question regarding the train in this image; Is this an M1, M2, or M3? ----DanTD (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it's either an M4 or an M6.oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Subway artwork images

A lot of subway stations are still listed in the category "New York City public transportation articles needing images", because there have artwork that could be exposed, especially if that artwork reduces the chances of the articles being stubs. If adding images of them is a copyright violation, and if there are links availabe to that artwork, perhaps I should remove them from the category. What do the rest of you think? ----DanTD (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested page move

I've requested that Lower East Side – Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line) be moved because the Official Map from the MTA no longer lists the station with the Lower East Side neighborhood identifier due to not being a terminal now. Discussion is on the article's talk page. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll piggyback on this thread. 57th Street (BMT Broadway Line) should be moved to 57th Street – Seventh Avenue (BMT Broadway Line), since it appears on the official map as such. Unless there's a valid reason for keeping things the way they are (and ILIKEIT isn't one). Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Support; it's name should be changed to what the official map says. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to have to throw in my Support for renaming this 57th Street – Seventh Avenue (BMT Broadway Line), since this is the official name, not to mention the fact that there's already another 57th Street Station on the IND Sixth Avenue Line. I may even move it myself withouth a concensus. ----DanTD (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you will have consensus, as I too support the move to the map name (though the existence of a Sixth Ave line station of the same name isn't really all that relevant. We already have an appropriate parenthetical disambiguator).oknazevad (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it now. ----DanTD (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done in my previous edit. ----DanTD (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

West Jersey Bridge?

I was just rummaging through a site called "Vintage Views of New York," and though I found very few views of Long Island on there, I decided to look up other stuff anyway. While I was there, I stumbled upon a postcard for a bridge I never knew existed called the "West Jersey Bridge." Where was this? ----DanTD (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was a pie-in-the-sky proposal for another hudson river crossing around somewhere in the low 100s like 110-145th streets. It certainly was never built!oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Do you think this is deserves an article, or should it just be a chapter in another article? ----DanTD (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, based on further research I did, this is actually the original proposed design for the George Washington Bridge. it may warrant a mention there, but not that much.oknazevad (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The presence of diagonal car float docks and associated Trump rail yard in foreground suggests to me that the bridge is at approximately 70th Street, and is the proposed consolidated rail bridge later discarded in favor of the New York Tunnel Extension, as described in Pennsylvania Station (New York City)#Planning and construction. Perhaps the postcard belongs with that description. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See here for another version: [11]. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with placing it at Jeffrey's Hook is topographical; that place never had such a broad expanse of flat land and the cliffs are much higher than depicted. Supporting the contrary position, the building slightly beyond the bridge resembles the 59th Street IRT powerhouse (though without that building's distinctive smokestacks) and the bluff that is now the western end of Clinton Park is approximately the proper size for the foreground. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks you may be reading too much into a drawing on a postcard, which an at times be amazingly inaccurate as to details other than the main subject (such as ones of Penn Station that I've seen that literally show all the surrounding blocks as completely devoid of structures, which was never the case). For that matter, if this truly is a depiction of of the original plans for the GWB, it could be that they moved the location further north during the planning process.

I tend to believe that is what this is, an early depicion of the planned GWB, not some phantom never-built bridge. I do recall that some discussion existed to build another Hudson River bridge, but that was after the GWB, and therefore after the postcard. But I don't have handy sources on that. Either way, more research is needed, possibly. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many Hudson River bridge proposals were afloat in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, for many Manhattan landfalls including The Battery, 14th, 59th, 72nd and 181st Streets. This last was chosen, at which time other locations and designs became phantoms. Yes, the picture clearly represents a phantom engineering design, never built. Yes, the location depicted may also represent, to some degree of accuracy, one of the phantoms or indeed may have been intended to represent, however inaccurately, the location that was eventually chosen. Intentions can be more difficult to read than drawings. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A Train

Just a FYI, there is currently a discussion going on at Talk: New York City Subway nomenclature about the use of <A> in articles. The thread is here. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Military Park (NLR station) vs. Park Place (H&M station)

How close is Military Park (NLR station) to the site of the former Park Place (H&M station) mentioned in the Port Authority Trans-Hudson article? And shouldn't the redlinks of all the former H&M stations be convered to H&M suffixes instead of PATH auffixes? ----DanTD (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To the former, not really that close, a few blocks at least. The Park Place station was on park place, of course, which is next the the NJPAC. Indeed, it might even be the same spot as NJPAC. but not close enough to really mention on the Military Park (NLR station) article, if that's what you're thinking.

As for using H&M suffix instead of the PATH one, I say yes, but. THere really aren't too many former H&M/PATH stations around in the first place. Outside of Park Place and Manhattan Transfer, which were directly replaced by the opening of the now-PATH platforms at Newark Penn, the only others are the long-closed 19th and 28th street stations on the Midtown line (the latter of which, remember, was closed because the current incarnation off 33rd Street is actually between 30th and 32nd, and so was deemed too close.) So really, I don't think here's enough to make a categorical decision on them. oknazevad (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Another pagemove discussion

I have started a move discussion Talk:New York City transit fares#Requested move to rename it to Transit fares in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for AlexNewArtBot?

I just came across QM12 (New York City Bus). However, the fact that this page went 6 months without anyone other than a NPP seeing it brings me to think that we might as well need to sign WP:NYCPT up for User:AlexNewArtBot's scanning services. I don't know how to write regular expressions, though. What do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Page for the Jay Street - MetroTech station complex

Main article: Jay Street - MetroTech (New York City Subway)

I have created an article page that can be used once the transfer between the Lawrence Street - MetroTech and Jay Street - Borough Hall stations is completed, when the station is renamed Jay Street - MetroTech'. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Valley Stream (LIRR station) editing troubles by an IP

An anonymous IP(69.123.10.155) has been trying to add the Atlantic Branch in the services parameter of Valley Stream (LIRR station) infobox, obviously trying to reflect the fact that the station is the terminus of the Atlantic Branch. Should we help him or her edit the thing right, or should we just tell this person to let it be, and explain why it should be left as is? ----DanTD (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I modified the template such that "Atlantic Far Rockaway" does not yield the Long Beach Branch, as there is already a separate Long Beach icon at all the instances where it is used. I removed the "West Hempstead" bold text as there is already a WH color box. Otherwise, I support what it looks like now. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

New York City public transportation articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the New York City public transportation articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions of service patterns

For some time, I have thought that there was room for improvement in the tables describing the "lines followed" in each of the subway service articles. The following, for example, appeared in the E Train article:

---

Following lines

The following lines are used by the E service:

Line	Tracks	Time
IND Archer Avenue Line (full line)	N/A	all times
IND Queens Boulevard Line north of Briarwood – Van Wyck Boulevard	express	weekdays (rush hours only)
IND Queens Boulevard Line from Van Wyck Boulevard to Forest Hills – 71st Avenue		mornings, afternoons
	local	evenings, late nights, and weekends
IND Queens Boulevard Line south of Forest Hills – 71st Avenue	express	all times except late nights
	local	late nights
IND Eighth Avenue Line from 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal to World Trade Center		all times

---

I felt that if you didn't already know the system pretty well — in other words, if you were actually reading the article and trying to learn something — you would likely find this confusing.

I spent a couple of weeks developing an alternative. I'm sufficiently certain it's an improvement, so I am going to go ahead and boldly insert into the relevant articles. This is what the equivalent passage for the E would look like:

---

Service pattern

The following table shows the lines used by the E service, with shaded boxes indicating the route at the specified times:

Line	From	To	Tracks	Times
				week days	week ends	late nights	rush peak
IND Archer Avenue Line (full line)	Jamaica Center – Parsons / Archer	Jamaica – Van Wyck	all
IND Queens Boulevard Line	Jamaica – 179th Street	Briarwood – Van Wyck Boulevard	express
	Briarwood – Van Wyck Boulevard	Forest Hills – 71st Avenue
			local
	Forest Hills – 71st Avenue	Queens Plaza	express
			local
	23rd Street – Ely Avenue	50th Street	all
IND Eighth Avenue Line	50th Street	World Trade Center	local

---

Looks great! One question... Why did you include under-river tunnels like Joralemon Street Tunnel in some but not others? Shouldn't they all be the same? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections: after two weeks of work, I still missed a few things.

Regarding the tunnels, I showed them only where they mark the point where one line begins and another ends. For instance, both Broadway – Nassau Street and High Street – Brooklyn Bridge are on the IND Eighth Avenue Line, so I did not "interrupt" it to show the Cranberry Street Tunnel in the middle. In contrast, Bowling Green is the southern-most stop on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line; the next stop, Borough Hall is on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line, so I showed the Joralemon Street Tunnel in between.

Not that I am absolutely wedded to that approach, but that was what I did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, colors throw me off as I assume the white is what is being used and gray is what is not being used. --iGeMiNix 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the explanation above does say that shaded boxes indicate the route at the specified times. Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, I still think it is more natural for white to be the time it is running out and gray or black for times where it isn't being used. But that's just me. Anyways good job. Peace.--iGeMiNix 04:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New Unnecessary Template for Deletion

DReifGalaxyM31 just created a new template for the Dyckman Street service suspension. I find this completely unnecessary since it only affects one station and the only article that needs this template is 191st Street. If anything, we can just add a note on that article's infobox saying that northbound trains do not stop at Dyckman Street until June 2011. I believe this template should be deleted, do you agree? Who here is an administrator who can delete templates? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't create the entry at TfD for the discussion. That needs to be done, else no one will be able to comment. (BTW, I The note can also be used at Dyckman St. itself, so its more than just one page.)oknazevad (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Images of Maturelife1 are threatened with deletion

I also mentioned this on WP Trains Image Task Force board: The images of User:Maturelife1 are currently threatened with deletion, over presumed copyright violations. Many are of BART stations, MARTA stations, which doesn't concern the New York Metropolitan Area, but all three Metro-North stations in Mount Vernon, New York are also facing this threat. I strongly advocate replacing them, even if they're not deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New York Elevated Railroad

I'm very surprised to find that there's no article on this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. There's already articles on all four Manhattan elevated lines, and the Brooklyn ones as well. I'm not sure what topic you'd like to see an article on.oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NYCS infobox moved

{{Infobox NYCS}} was just moved to {{Infobox New York City Subway}}. I don't know if there was a consensus or a discuss for this move, but it seems like one editor just took it upon his/herself to change the name. I don't think the move was necessary, but I think it should be reverted with a discussion taking place first. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. There was no consensus to move the page unilaterally. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I figured, but I didn't want to do the revert since I'm not an active member of this project and may have missed a possible consensus that was made. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing it and posting here as I didn't have it on my watchlist! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that user is moving templates that use acronyms in their names to spelled out versions. He also moved {{WB}} to {{Warner Bros.}}. Im not necessarily sure that's a bad thing (it would make it easier to find them), but he should have probably discussed it first. At least he's updating the transclusion links. oknazevad (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Electric Railway

The Ocean Electric Railway finally has an article. Fill that baby with whatever detail you may have available. ----DanTD (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Huntington Railroad

Since December 8, 2010, the article for the Huntington Railroad has no longer been a redirect. If you have more details, please fill them in. ----DanTD (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

MTA changed the URL's again

The MTA has changed the URL's to the LIRR stations again. I just tried to look up the lonk for Patchogue (LIRR station), and the one in the template sent me to a "File Not Found" page, instead of here(http://lirr42.mta.info/stationInfo.php?id=124). ----DanTD (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears the links come from {{LIRR links}} and most of the links look like they are working now after I adjusted the template. The Patchogue link still doesn't work though. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The link is no longer going to a dead page, but the one for Patchogue still isn't going to Patchogue station. ----DanTD (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I misspelled Patchogue in the template. This is exactly what I wrote the template for-to make the link-changing easy. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You know, I had always hoped that a template would change automatically with the URL's. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit threat:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The value of this discussion has lost any importance. As a result, I'm invoking WP:IAR & WP:BOLD and shutting this match down. I've watched this discussion from afar and read the edit warring message. To say the least, Fram and DanTD's behavior between this are far from reputable. I highly suggest leaving this alone because if more arguing goes on, this will be at WP:ANI fast. There is precedent to keep these titles, using examples due to the confusion of Hawthorne (NJT station) / Hawthorne (NYSW station) / Hawthorne (Metro-North station). I feel uncomfortable with the level of nonsense. Fram is showing an inability to consider other opinion, and as a result is driving other editors away from the discussion. DanTD knows very well about edit warring (I've been in several) and I highly suggest backing off. This discussion is getting old and nothing is happening but argument. Take the time to calm down and let's get back to expanding these articles, not arguing over their title.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Over on the main WP:Trains talk page, User:Sameboat and User:Fram thinks that Merillon Avenue (LIRR station) should be renamed Merillon Avenue, simply because no other articles on Wikipedia are named "Merillon Avenue." Would somebody explain the problem with this? ----DanTD (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "threat" is supposed to be, but the problem with this is that the current name is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), our main guideline on how articles on Wikipedia are titled. The article title should be the official or most commonly used name of the subject. Only if there are multiple articles on Wikipedia with the same potential title should disambiguation be used. If Merillion Avenue is the official name of the station, then that should be the name of the article. If it is officially named Merillon Avenue Station, then that should be used. Fram (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion shows inconsistencies. All Long Island Rail Road stations are required to have the suffix "(LIRR station)" in the name. The overwhelming majority of railroad stations are required to contain the name of the system suffixes, even if there aren't any other articles with the same names. ----DanTD (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Required by you? They are not supposed to have that extension by default, only where absolutely needed. Fram (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a Trains' naming convention somewhere that could solve this?? WP:NYCS says that commuter rail follows that. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) was not accepted. In general, project specific guidelines only can decide what to do when the general guideline cannot be followed, they don't decide to override the general guideline by default. The principle is that local consensus can not override global consensus, it can only add to it in those cases where no global guideline exists or where it isn't clear enough (e.g. the global guideline makes it clear when to disambiguate, but which disambiguator to use is up to the individual projects). Fram (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) is a commonly accepted practice for most active stations in the United States. The main dispute regarding the naming convention in the US is over stations that don't necessarily follow that convention, like historic stations(active or otherwise), and those that have multiple systems, i.e.; Union Station (Los Angeles), Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Pennsylvania Station (Newark), Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), Bridgeport (Metro-North station) in Connecticut, etcetera. ----DanTD (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the station name should not be changed to simply the name of the avenue. This is not an article about an avenue but a railroad station. This is the practice even if there is no actual street with the name of the station. For instance, there is Woodlawn (IRT Jerome Avenue Line). That is the article name, even though the station itself is called simply "Woodlawn." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that there are at least four Woodlawn stations on Wikipedia, this is a case where more precise disambiguation is needed, so I have no objection to the current name, although I think it would be much better if it actually had the word "Station" somewhere, e.g. Woodlawn (IRT station). Fram (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not likely, because it's specifically for a station on the IRT Jerome Avenue Line. ----DanTD (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So? For me, "IRT station" gives more concrete and recognisable info than "IRT Jerome Avenue Line". Why would you use a more precise but more obscure disambiguation when you can actually provide the reader with some recognisable info? Fram (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

IRT Jerome Avenue line is much more recognisable. I totally don't get that point. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, Fram doesn't understand how many lines are part of the IRT, or IND, or BMT, nor does he understand how many stations on those lines share the same names. ----DanTD (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to show him/her 125th Street and all the IRT stations with that name. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So? How is, for a layman looking for info on a station" "IRT Jerome Avenue Line" more recognisable than "IRT Station"? For those cases when there are multiple stations with the same name in the IRT system, obviously further disambiguation is needed. But that doesn't mean that the most detailed disambiguation should then be used for each and every station. When we have people with the same name, we add their main profession. Only when there are people with the same name and profession do we add further disambiguators, like year of birth or country of origin. That we need to do this in some cases doesn't mean that we will apply this in all cases. There are and have been many people named Heinrich Schütz, but since we only have one with an article, we don't name that article Heinrich Schütz (German composer). Why do you all insist that train stations are treated differently? Fram (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a little issue known as consistency. All stations on the IRT Jerome Avenue Line have that suffix, unless they're in a station complex, i.e.; 161st Street – Yankee Stadium (New York City Subway). ----DanTD (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And why is this local consistency more important than the global, Wikipedia-wide consistency, or for that matter more important than providing an easily understandable and recognizable title for not so specialized readers? Take the example that started this discussion: Merillon Avenue (LIRR station). You seel to be so entrenched in your quest for ultra-specific consistency that you ignore the pure basics, like the fact that the normal search term for anyone who doesn't know what standard of consistency you use, i.e. 99% of the readers, encounters a redlink when looking for Merillion Avenue or Merillion Avenue station. A large number of station articles can be moved to "XX station", without any extension. Most of the others can easily be moved to "XX station (LIRR)" or "XX station (IND)", with only a few, e.g. the 50th street stations, needing an actual disambiguation by line. This is consistent with how the rest of Wikipedia works, no matter if it is about people, movies, bands, ... Fram (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consistency. Merillon Avenue station is a Long Island Rail Road station, therefore it gets the "(LIRR station)" suffix, as all other LIRR stations do. And no, these stations CAN NOT be moved to (LIRR) or (IND), or (IRT), or (Metro-North), etc. One reason for this is the fact that the (Long Island Rail Road) suffix already belongs to the Main Line and Springfield Junction. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At least try to make the distinction between CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT (according to your rules) when you start shouting... Fram (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See, this is part of the problem. You're clinging to the notion that this is just about me. There's a legitimate reason these suffixes are attached to them, and you're removal of them causes too many problems. ----DanTD (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many problems? The articles where I actually have removed them (and which have nothing to do with the NYC project) have continued without any problems for over a year before you came along. An article like Alkali Flat / La Valentina (which actually is one of those you moved to the disambiguated version) doesn't have any more or less problems with or without the disambiguation. Please name one thing that doesn't work anymore for this article without the disambiguation. For that matter, I would like one reason why you claimed that articles like Merillon Avenue CAN NOT be moved to a (LIRR) disambiguation either, if needed. Your claim, your evidence please. Fram (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Main Line and Springfield Junction again, if you did so in the first place. Those are dab pages with links to LIRR-related subjects, but they're not about stations. ----DanTD (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

These are articles about stations. Unless the station has a name (Penn, GCT, etc.), the article title should clearly represent the fact that this is a station. For most commuter rail stations, the suffix is necessary, since they are names of towns with their own articles (Mineola, Stamford). Some don't refer to names (Merillon Avenue, Country Life Press, Purdy's, etc.), but their titles should really show this is a station by using the suffix. Otherwise, it seems that it's an article about the road/location itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, article titles are not intended to indicate what kind of thing the article is about, just to present the actual name or most used name of the topic. In the case of stations, the most common name will often include "station" or a variety, so I have no objection against including that. But it is not "obvious" what Li Hang is (a person, a place, something else) Fram (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The point that you're missing is that this is not an article about Merillion Avenue, but about a station. To call it Merillion Avenue would be misleading. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please complain to the LIRR. If they are giving their station a name you consider misleading, then we can only report that. If the actual name of the station is Merillon Avenue Station, then we should have it at that title as well. Greenland isn't green, but we don't change it into Greenland (Icecovered country) either. If the subject has a "misleading" title, then our article has a misleading title as well: Huston Street, Stanley Road, Summertown Road, Mermaid Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Blue Hill Avenue are all not about streets, roads, ... but about other things. No one seems to be unduly confused by this though, since they are the actual names of the subjects of the articles. Why would stations be more confusing than other subjects? Fram (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, stop this nonsense. Every station on most railroads is named for the street it's on, without "station" being appended. This discussion has lost all value and I'm ending my participation therein. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

NO railroad, let alone the LIRR, is going to change the names of their stations or any other property just because we write articles about them. While we're at it, it was actually User:Sameboat who thought that changing the name of the Merillon Avenue station article was a good idea. I haven't seen him joining this thread once. ----DanTD (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested page move

Fulton Street / Broadway – Nassau Street → Fulton Street. Broadway-Nassau Street is now officially Fulton Street. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{happy • merry}} 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Less a move as a merge, as there's already a Fulton Street Transit Center article. The combined article should be at the new name. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Support – The page move. We can merge the Fulton Street Transit Center article later. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Fulton Street (New York City Subway) is aldeady a dab page, I've got to go with oknazevad's suggestion, and go with a merge into Fulton Street Transit Center. ----DanTD (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The dab page is an unnecessary duplicate of Fulton Street (disambiguation). It can be deleted without the loss of any information. After the page is moved, link to Fulton Street (disambiguation) via a hatnote. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge per Oknazevad, deleting the dabpage rather than cut-and-paste move with history link. History should only be at Fulton Street (New York City Subway) and Fulton Street Transit Center — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Ron Ritzman at 03:31 on 2011 January 15. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody would like to add the former names to the station, and/or to each platform. ----DanTD (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Lexington, Broadway-7th Av, and Nassau Avenue Lines platforms always been "Fulton Street" with the Eighth Av. Line being "Broadway / Nassau Streets". Am I wrong? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, only the IND Eighth Ave Line platform was renamed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the former name has already been added the Eighth Avenue Line infobox. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see it there at the time, but yeah, I see it now. ----DanTD (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

8th Street CNJ

With the opening of 8th Street just 12 days away, I've come up with a question. Considering the station design harkens the old Central Railroad of New Jersey station, shall we cover the history of the original CNJ station here or at West 8th Street (Central Railroad of New Jersey station)? The history of the West 8th Street station as many know is pretty dense, so what would you prefer? Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate, but linked article. They're not really the same station, architectural similarities aside. They're not served by the same railroad (The HBLR isn't even a mainline railroad), the station saw no continuous operations, and the building was demolished (though the new station is an absolutely fantastic tribute). I think including the same picture as the CNJ station article, to show the architectural similarity, would be a nice touch. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the old 8th Street CNJ station in the HBLR station article, though. ----DanTD (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said. At least that's what I meant by "separate but linked article".oknazevad (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm content with the advice. Its just not as easy to get a picture in, especially if you want the station's prime. Now, would it be easier to cover and redirect Bayonne Scoot to 8th Street, to Aldene Plan or keep its own article? Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I lean toward it's own article, as it was an ongoing service for some time, but if there's not really enough for it's own article, them the Aldene Plan article, as the underlying reason for the Scoot's existence is the better choice, as the scoot served more than just the 8th st station. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper names?

It's great to see that this project has some stable naming conventions. I don't mean to rock things, but one of your guys made an assertion that I question, and I want to see what people here know or think about what's a proper name. See Talk:New York City Subway#Proper_name? where we started talking about it. The question is about the capitalization of "Subway" in New York City Subway and, by extension, "Line" in some related articles, etc. Any background, info, or previous discussions about this, or is it just a project convention to capitalize these? Dicklyon (talk) 2:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

You raise a good point. I'm not sure that the "S" in subway is officially capitalized. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a proper name. All subway cars have the MTA logo on their sides with New York City Subway as text below it. For example, see the logo on the far right in this picture of an R160A F train or here on the side of an R62A 9 train. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think of that one, but that's another example that it's treated as a proper noun by the actual owners, even if it's commonly misused. oknazevad (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So even though the owners don't mention it on their web site, the capitalization of a logo on a train makes it a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So should we fix it to be not treated as a proper name? Consider:

• The "actual owners" (operators) at mta.info don't call it "New York City Subway" except on a map title and a train car logo; never in a sentence. The closest they come to using it in a sentence is lower-case, in "all New York City subway and elevated lines".
• Almost all books set it as "New York City subway" and "New York City subway system" once you get past the titles. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (for some of these you'll have to do a search to see the snippet). (But a few books do capitalize it in a sentence: [20].)
• Scholarly articles almost never capitalize it in a sentence.
• The guideline WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) says "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." That is clearly not the case with "New York City subway".
• Relative usage in books in overwhelmingly in favor of non-proper interpretation: [21].
• Widespread changes would be needed to bring this into line with WP guidelines, but it wouldn't be hard to get started and point it in the right direction.

Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Move request

There has been posted a move request to de-capitalize the "S" in "New York City Subway". See Talk:New York City Subway. Please direct all comments there.oknazevad (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Subway line infoboxes

Until yesterday, I had no idea how many subway lines needed infoboxes, especially those of the BMT. I've got a hidden one for the BMT Jamaica Line right now, and I recently created a BMT Jamaica bullet compostion for it that I've been trying and to upload into the commons, but they keep rejecting it. I completely forgot how I was able to add the one for the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. Anybody care to whip up some infoboxes and and bullets for them? ----DanTD (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you can't do SVG, but those bullets should be in SVG. Deleting the PNG versions takes forever (I started the deletion of one in August and I think it's still open). Try Inkscape, or make requests here, please. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Long Island trolley gauges

Does anybody have any concrete info on the rail gauges used by the Huntington Railroad and Northport Traction Company? Did they have the same tracks as Ocean Electric Railway, Babylon Railroad, Suffolk Traction Company and all the other trolley lines in downstate New York, or did they use something else? ---DanTD (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - I just added the gauges anyhow. If I'm wrong, change it, or erase it, or whatever else you have to do. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bx4A bus being noted

I've noticed that the new Bx4A bus is noted in the List of bus routes in the Bronx article (with the Bx4 listing) but not on the list of bus transfers for subway stations along the Bx4A route (i.e. Third Avenue - 149th Street to Simpson Street on the IRT White Plains Road Line, Whitlock Avenue to Parkchester on the IRT Pelham Line, & Westchester Square - East Tremont Avenue on the IRT Pelham Line). Was there a consensus that it wasn't going to be done? ~kiddRell_ (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Added. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NJT links

Just like I wrote {{LIRR links}}, I've now wrote {{NJT links}}. Could someone help place it on station articles? Just place it, everything else should be automatic. I don't want to do this en masse using AWB, because I have to check each article to make sure the refs don't include the schedule, thereby making the template redundant. Any bugs/typos/mis-generations/broken links, please report on my talkpage. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll do the NEC and the North Jersey Shore Line. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the schedule link in the reference section, and the entire references section if that's the only ref. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

En dashes

After reading MOS:ENDASH, I am suspicious that this project's usage of endashes doesn't exactly follow practices, specifically involving spacing. Endashes in station names are considered disjunctive, but not all of them should be spaced, according to the MOS.

Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items

That means that we may need to amend our naming conventions and/or move some articles. Also, it says that hyphenated place names should not be using endashes. Therefore, there are several cases we need to address:

• Mastic – Shirley (LIRR station) Mastic and Shirley are separate places, they don't have spaces in them. Should this be hyphenated or de-spaced?
• Clinton–Washington Avenues (IND Fulton Street Line) If the above is spaced, this should be spaced too.
• Middletown – Town of Wallkill (Metro-North station) This was moved to be unspaced and then I objected and told the user to revert it.
• Croton – Harmon (Metro-North station) Hyphen? Unspaced? The town is "Croton-on-Hudson".

Opinions? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always felt the excessive use of endashes made the titles look awkward, and were dishonest. With most of the stations you've listed, I say "de-space." When I look at the styles for the two Metro-North stations, and I don't see that much space betwen the names and the hyphens. I wish I could say the same for the Long Island Rail Road stations, but I say de-space them anyway. ----DanTD (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Clinton-Washington Avs wouldn't be spaced because it stands for "and" (as per role 3 in MOS:ENDASH). i.e. Clinton Avenue & Washington Avenue ~kiddRell_ (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who frequents the MoS talk page, I will tell you this about that sausage-making operation. A)The ENDASH section is one of the more controversial, as some rules are inconsistent with general usage from many sources. B)The MoS as whole is full of arbitrary decisions that are based on little more than WP:ILIKEIT arguments. C) It's not law, and needn't be followed as iron clad policy.

The spacing guideline is frequently questioned, but those questions are usually off-handedly dismissed by the entrenched editors who crafted them in the first place. They especially create an issue, in my mind, in that they call for a different typography for dashes performing the exact same function. This doesn't work, as dashes with different spacing – such as these interrupting dashes – have different purposes.

What this means for us is that we should not spend a ridiculous amount of time worrying about spacing dashes. oknazevad (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

New York and Newark Penn Station have been proposed for renaming. See here for the thread. Cheers, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Train2104 and Reference Removal

Please enlighten me on what consensus allowed Train2104 and that piece of crap AutoWikiBrowser to go ahead and remove my hard worked citations for timetables in NJ Transit station articles back into external links? It detriments the article when there are no references and useful ones were removed for the external links section, which isn't even a requirement. I have no strength to revert all those edits, and unless he wants to revert them myself, I'd like to call a foul right now on this problem.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the ones (seeing the discussion above) that were being used for other parts of the article, which is proving to show how miniscule these edits were. (I reverted Bay Street, Kingsland, Mount Olive, Millington, Hackettstown, Denville, Gillette, and a few others). The discussion above showed no consensus to do such a thing.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also: "I don't want to do this en masse using AWB, because I have to check each article to make sure the refs don't include the schedule, thereby making the template redundant." - From the section above, why the story change and what makes it now 25 days later allowable?Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I will stop until a consensus is received. As you may notice, I'm doing this pretty slowly, checking each edit after I made it. No putting in the template and blindly saving, that's for sure. If having 2 schedule links, both in the ref section and in the external links, is acceptable, we can do that. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cortlandt Street

Cortlandt El

Is there a way to identify this elevated station? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be either the Cortlandt Street station of the Sixth Ave. El or the Ninth Ave. El station. My guess would be the Ninth Ave. El station, because the Singer Building appears to be two blocks away. A firm ID can be had by checking the addresses of some of the stores in the photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's identified here[22] as the street between Washington and Greenwich, which would confirm this as the Ninth Ave. El. A better identification of the picture may be had elsewhere, such as the Library of Congress. I identified this as the Ninth Avenue El in the Radio Row photo caption, but I don't recall what my source was for that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is already an article for the Cortland Street 9th Avenue El, we can alway put it there. I would, but I got a hand injury recently. It's a struggle for me just to type this message. ----DanTD (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done for you DanTD. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. Incredible that we were all thinking of deleting or merging these articles many months ago. ----DanTD (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a smart location for the photo. I was going to add it myself but I wasn't sure where to put it, the article being so small. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted how this came out, and on the strength of the above have geotagged the photo even though the street address of 68 Cortlandt Street doesn't help. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I have an old Red Book city directory, which indicates that 68 Cortlandt was between Greenwich (No. 51) and Washington (No. 73). Case closed! ScottyBerg (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

23rd Street–Ely Avenue has been renamed

In real life, I mean. Just a heads-up. http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=208 Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I merged the Ely and Court Sq pages onto Court Square – 23rd Street (New York City Subway). Since this is my first station complex merger, can you please review it? I would leave the 7 page alone until the connection opens in a few weeks. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check the naming convention (for stations and station complexes) for additional tasks to complete. What you have so far looks good, it's just that there's more to do. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More specifically the new redirects to be created and linked to, Court Square – 23rd Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line), Court Square (IND Crosstown Line), and Court Square (IRT Flushing Line). I'd help, but I have an appointment this evening. ;-) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to do most of that. Who knows if I will succeed. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On a less important note, can somebody get an image just for the main infobox? Or will I have to tag this for the image task force? ----DanTD (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do the changing of links in other pages until the connection opens and we can do everything at once. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well 45th Road-Court House Square (IRT Flushing Line) station was already merged into the article. The trouble is all mention of it's status as a subway station on the National Register of Historic Places have been removed. ----DanTD (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

NYCS Map is POTD for 03-18-2011

We should see the NYCS map on the Main Page in a few minutes, at last!

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

Recently featured:

• European bison
• Artemis I
• Sherman's March to the Sea

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I do have concerns with the summary text, as it repeats the claim from the article that it's the fifth most-ridden system, as that has been tagged for citation for a few months, a tag I left after someone inserted the claim that Bejing passed New York City. I've never seen a reliable source for that, and would much appreciate one, just to allay my concerns of over-inflated claims. oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all of my version has been put up on the main page, so I edited this page to transclude what is transcluded on the Main Page. And "rapid transit rail system" sounds very awkward. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Railroad direction for the M train

Apparently, whoever keeps removing the statement about the M train operating in opposite railroad direction on the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Lines is at again. (S)he has now tagged the statement with a sign and threatens to remove it again if we do not find a source for it soon. Does anyone have physical proof about the M's odd service? We know historically that Middle Village - Metropolitan Avenue is the northern terminal of the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line and the M train before June 28, 2010, but is it possible it is now the southern terminal due to the M's new route? Find some proof or we are dead meat. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan Avenue has been the Southern Terminus of the Myrtle avenue line since railroad directions have been defined as North and South in the Eastern Division. It was, however, the Northern Terminus of the M train until 6/27/10. Ironically, the statement I challenged about the M line changing railroad direction was added because of the change which made it obsolete. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling stock in old music video

Can anybody here identify the type of train shown in the music video for Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message?" (http://www.geting.se/viewimage/image/297920-vlcsnap-2011-04-07-23h09m29s160.png). That roll sign looks like something from the 1940's to me, but the train itself I'm not to sure about. ----DanTD (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks like an R21 or R22. Those were the only IRT cars to have that style of drop-sash window on the car end door. The R17s prior to that had a round window, and the R26s and newer had a fixed window. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New Haven RR Electric Locomotive

Can anybody identify the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad locmotive shown here at Port Chester Station from the 1950's? It looks like an E7 diesel with the head at both ends. ----DanTD (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

More coordinates errors

The coordinates used for Mount Vernon East (Metro-North station) place the station at Fordham (Metro-North station), so they're way off. BTW, I'm making a gallery for Mount Vernon East station right now. ----DanTD (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - Thanks for the fix, User:Train2104. There may be one more image to upload if I can find a new name for it. The Google StreetView image is quite surprising as well. Scan to the right of that, and there's another image I should've captured along with the ones I already took. ----DanTD (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge categories

Per discussion at WT:TWP, new track gauge categories have been created. Tramway systems fall under these categories, which are sub-cats of Category:Broad gauge railways, Category:Standard gauge railways and Category:Narrow gauge railways. Population of the various gauge categories needs to be done by adding the relevant gauge category to articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just added this categoy to every existing railroad in the New York Tri-State area, and more than several outside of the tri-state area. I'd just like to be sure that all the old trolley lines are correct. ----DanTD (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of MTA’s subway line designations

(Forgive me if any of you have seen this before, but I’m too impatient to comb through the archives.)

MTA Developer Resources publishes a list of latitude/longitude coordinates for every station exit in the system. In addition to the coordinates, the list contains what I presume are the line designations the MTA uses internally.

You can peruse the original data file if you wish (currently dated 1 July 2010), but I’ve processed out the line and station names and listed them here. —Larry V (talk | e-mail) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Image Progress Updates

As some of you know I finally got the chance to return to the New York Metropolitan Area in April 2011. I stayed at a relative's house on Long Island most of the time I was there. Before I arrived, I took pictures of stations in South Carolina, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Once I got to Long Island, I went to the city and snapped some pics of the two remaining IND Queens Boulevard Line stations with no images; 36th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) and 75th Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), both of which now have galleries. I'd love to pat myself on the back and say that the line is fully illustrated, but I later read some old messages on the talk page of Jamaica – 179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) seeking a replacement image. If I knew that there were people seeking one, I might've taken one there. I also took some of Locust Manor (LIRR station), which has a gallery of it's own as of Saturday May 21, 2011.

Besides Locust Manor station, I also captured some for Locust Valley (LIRR station), Merillon Avenue (LIRR station), Freeport (LIRR station), and Merrick (LIRR station), but not Baldwin (LIRR station). I really wanted this one, because it would not only give the station an image, but would add another pic to the Baldwin, New York commons category. Luckily, I successfully replaced the image of the old shelter at Great River (LIRR station) with a more contemporary structure, and a small gallery. I was hoping to get one of the station house at Stony Brook (LIRR station) but I was moving too fast.

The IRT Lenox Avenue Line is now fully illustrated, but I wasn't able to get the pic of the street-level entrance of Harlem – 148th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line) that I wanted, because it was as blurry as all hell. So I had to substitute it with one from the platforms. I did ad a new image to the 145th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) gallery, and even added two to 103rd Street – Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line) station's gallery, which only had one image until that point. 111th Street (IRT Flushing Line) station needs more images for that gallery, and I think I have an idea or two on where some can be shot.

The three Metro-North Railroad stations in Mount Vernon, New York had images that were deleted over questionable copyright issues during the winter. Jim Henderson took care of the one for Fleetwood (Metro-North station) before I came here, so I passed that one over and took care of the one at Mount Vernon West (Metro-North station), My original plan was to replicate the previous picture, but I found that the one I took was much better. I can't say the same for Mount Vernon East (Metro-North station), but I still had some decent shots there, and I created galleries for both. There is one other image along the New Haven Line in Mount Vernon that's quite the relic; File:Mount Vernon East-11,000 Volts.JPG which warns of an 11,000 voltage. It looks like it was installed by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad itself.

I'm still bummed that I didn't capture images of Baldwin, Bridgehampton, Bellport, Mastic-Shirley, Amagansett, and the former Water Mill LIRR stations, or the Pelham and Derby-Shelton Metro-North stations. The old Mattituck "produce storage" facility would've been nice too, as would have been Hollis and Country Life Press stations on the Hempstead Branch. The only thing keeping me from taking pics for the remaining articles on the IND Crosstown Line was a malfunction on the G Train. Sorry I couldn't replace Woodmere (LIRR station). Maybe next time. ----DanTD (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recent photos of Pelham, so that can be erased once I upload them. Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, good. Any New Haven Railroad station history that can be used for the stations? A lot of them are rebuilds and look like them, so when I look at stations like Mount Vernon East and Rye (Metro-North station) and their connections to the NYW&B, something doesn't seem right. Also, I think my one mistake with Mount Vernon West was that I didn't capture a pic of the 1910 cornerstone under the bridge over Mount Vernon Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not my cup of tea, I'm still slowly expanding on the NYCRR, patience sir. ;) - My Mt Vernon West photos aren't worth it. As for Rye, yes it is a rebuild. Most of Metro-North is rebuilds since they go the hard way for ADA standards.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have more planned for Pelham? Because I see a redlinked category just for that station in the commons. I thought about replacing it with a New Haven Line commonscat if you don't. ----DanTD (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Division railroad directions

I have gone through and changed the next stop directions on all M line only stations in the eastern division. (i.e The Myrtle line) This is very cut and dry as there is no real disagreement here. Before I go through and change the directions for the portion on broadway, I figured we should discuss what the proper way to show directions is here. As I see it, there are two ways we could go about doing it. One is leave the J as it is, and change the direction of the M line from Essex to Myrtle. This would be correct as to service directions, but would be a bit messy at all stops from Essex to Myrtle. The other option is to change the direction of both the J and M, which would be correct as to railroad direction. This would be REALLY messy for Chambers Street station, where the next stop is south regardless of which direction the J is going. I'm unsure as to which is better, but regardless of the choice made, one must be taken as the status quo is factually incorrect. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell:

Option	Pros	Cons
Railroad directions	Correct use of "next north/south", as we currently use it. Consistency between J and M on Jamaica Line. Permanent directions, for all intents and purposes.	J runs south from Chambers in either direction. J and E run in opposite directions on Archer Avenue Line.
Service directions	From Chambers Street, north is to Canal Street and south is to Fulton Street. E and J run in same direction along Archer Avenue. Agrees with published service timetables.	Incorrect use of "next north/south", unless we change its meaning altogether. J and M run in opposite directions on Jamaica Line. Service directions are ephemeral, as the M reroute showed.

I'm not sure which option I'd prefer, at the moment. I'll have to chew on it for a bit. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I came up with another idea today, which I think would be ideal, although would require a bit more work(making a new template for just these stations). We could simply change the template for the stations from Marcy to Myrtle to read Towards Manhattan and Towards Queens instead of north and south. 67.247.23.150 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't address the fact that Template:Infobox NYCS/doc says "north" and "south" mean one thing, while all the Jamaica Line articles use them to mean something else. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to create new templates for all station info-boxes between Myrtle Avenue and Marcy Avenue to show the opposite railroad directions between the J and M trains. When I tried editing them, the wrong time frames showed up. We need one to show the J serving the stations at all times except weekdays in peak direction and the M serving it on weekdays. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Above should read opposite SERVICE directions. Railroad directions are unambiguous. Marcy to Myrtle is South, regardless of what train you are on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.44.246 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The first problem here is not that Marcy–Myrtle is screwed up, it's that the Jamaica Line articles are using service directions (north to Jamaica Center) when they should be using railroad directions, according to the parameters of Template:Infobox NYCS. If they were using railroad directions, we wouldn't have this particular problem. (Then again, using railroad directions for BMT Nassau Street/Jamaica would introduce arguably bigger problems at Chambers Street and along Archer Avenue.) Should we change Template:Infobox NYCS/doc to specify that "north/south" are service directions, not railroad directions? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think going with service directions would necessarily be a bad idea, I think the Archer ave stations are a substantially less important disagreement than that found between Essex and Myrtle. On Archer, they are two wholly separate sets of tracks, with different chaining, on different levels with no connections (even different divisions). On Broadway, not only are they the same line, theyre generally sharing the same tracks. Until I started changing these, the M had a direction break much like what we are talking about on the J between Broadway Lafayette and Essex. It was a bit confusing, but with a note on the Chambers Street boxes, I think we could make it clear. 71.190.44.246 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point about Broadway vs. Archer. And it's 7 stations to 2. So the "easiest" thing to do would be to revise the Nassau/Jamaica Line stations to reflect railroad directions, and figure out how to deal with the special cases of Chambers, Sutphin, and Jamaica Center. Did I forget anything? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Two stations? Then what is Jamaica-Van Wyck? I know it's not connected to the BMT Jamaica Line, but it's still Archer Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right about Jamaica–Van Wyck; I was only considering the stations that we'd have to sort out if we reverted (corrected, in my current opinion) the J/Z stations to use railroad directions. I don't think we'd have to touch Van Wyck, fortunately. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 15:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 ridership

Because the link for 2010 annual ridership per station includes 2009's data and the percent change, having the second ref tag is unnecessary. Geoking66_talk 20:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been only using one reference, but Rockies77 has been using two. It might do some good to post this to his talk page. I thought about going through and removing the second one manually, but it's more trouble than it's worth at the moment. Maybe I'll use a bot if I have the time. At least the 2009 link isn't wrong. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who started using 2 references. I'm assuming that Rockies77 got it from me. Sorry for any trouble. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep updating using AWB. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. I'll do Manhattan tommorow. As I'm going along, I'm also putting in exact (unrounded) figures. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to change them to unrounded? The format has been x.xxx million since they were introduced. Geoking66_talk 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not necessary per se, but there's no harm in it. In fact, many articles about the busiest stations include a precise figure in the article text itself, which makes less sense to me than including precise figures in the infobox. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The original formatting inspiration was from London Underground articles back in 2008 when I added the ridership option to Infobox NYCS. Essentially, having x.xxx million is quicker to understand in an infobox, ie 18.534 million is more apparent than 18,534,258. I'd argue that precise numbers wouldn't particularly make sense for large station complexes either. I trialled the weekday numbers for 86th Street with "…almost 61,000 entries per weekday, 86th Street is the ninth-busiest station…" thinking it could work in those cases. Now it makes no sense to revert all those edits, it was just a thought. Geoking66_talk 03:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that it's easier to read "18.534 million", but the infobox isn't body text, so I don't think it's worth fussing over such a small thing. I'm actually now considering whether it's worth replacing precise figures in body text with "x.xxx million", since readability is much more important in that context. Fortunately there aren't that many instances of this. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Subway Yards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_yards Different criteria have obviously been used to determine which services are served by which yards. Some yards list only the services which are based out of that yard for maintenance purposes, while other yards list all services which use the yard even if only for storage. I think we should separate out the services into two columns, one for storage, one for maintenance.128.122.2.41 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be sourced first. Anyone have any? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracks of the NYC Subway has some sources. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)