Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 1

This talk page archive was previously part of WikiProject New York City Subway, which has since expanded to WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Quick FYI: Just about every link to IND should point to Independent Subway System

Subway lines and station names

The title of subway lines and station names (even on the same line) also vary wildly in structure, .

See, for example:

• 51st Street (6 Line)
• 125th Street (Green Line)
• 4 (New York Subway)
• 5 Line (New York Subway)

Standardization is necessary - particularly when, as is the case for the first two above, both stations are stops on the same subway line! Moncrief 17:46, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think I see what was meant by "Green Line" for the 125th St. stop; since the 4, 5, and 6 all stop here, and the line is green on the map, the person who made that article probably figured it would be easier to just use a colour which they all happen to share. However, I've never heard anyone use "Green Line" as a way of describing the 4/5/6 so it is a little misleading to use colours to describe the subway lines and stops, even though the MTA map uses them. Darkcore 22:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I've always just called it "The Lex", or perhaps "The East Side IRT". Never, ever, heard it called "The Green Line". RoySmth 22:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just easier to rename all of these subway station articles as XXX Street (New York Subway) or South Ferry (New York Subway), etc., without trying to fit the name of the subway line into the title. That template is similar to the titles of articles about station stops on the Paris Metro; see, for example, Couronnes (Paris Metro) Moncrief 23:05, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

What about streets that have several stations? BernardM 01:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The official NYC-TA strip maps list cross-streets for every station, i.e. "Pelham Parkway / Williamsbridge Road" and "Pelham Parkway / White Plains Road". I would just use those for the article titles. Using Moncrief's suggestion, an example of a full article title might be "Pelham Parkway / Williamsbridge Road (New York City Subway)". The other advantage to this is that you could look at a list of all the stations and see how the lines wind their way around the city. I'd be cool with any variation on that with whatever punctuation turns people on. RoySmith 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just did some more looking around. It seems that there are a few stations which don't list cross-streets, but they all seem to be those which have natural two-part names, like "42nd St - Times Square" or "42nd St - Port Authority Bus Terminal". RoySmith 02:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not using the cross-street name, but I think the true name of the station should be more clear than in "station / cross-street" (this looks like the station has two different names). Maybe "Pelham Parkway, across Williamsbridge Road (New York Subway)"? It's not easy to find a light terminology ;-). BernardM 14:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think "at" works better than "across", i.e. "Pelham Parkway at Williamsbridge Road (New York Subway)". BTW, should it be (New York Subway) or (New York City Subway)? RoySmith 17:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with "at". Do you think (New York Subway) can be ambiguous? If not, I think we should use it since it's shorter. BernardM 17:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about "Pelham Parkway station / Williamsbridge Road"? This would cut down on sentence complexity. Truth be told, I'm not sure we need a dismbig ((New York Subway) or (New York City Subway)) for these stations at all, how many more "Pelham Parkway station / Williamsbridge Road"s can there be? But if you guys think it would help with organization, that's OK.--Pharos 18:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't need the {New York Subway} in every case, such as the above, but I do think it's a good idea for articles about stations that are solely street names, to disambiguate them from any potential article about the street itself - or to avoid confusion if someone is looking up the name of the street and doesn't care about the subway stop there. But perhaps organizational purposes mandate that we be consistent, as cumbersome-sounding as "Pelham Parkway station / Williamsbridge Road (New York Subway)" might be. I suppose we should look at how other articles of major subway systems in the world are organized on Wikipedia. Moncrief 18:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

If we use "(New York Subway)", we don't have to add "station". I prefer "(New York Subway)" to "station" because there could be other stations with the same name in other cities, or for other means of transportation. I think it's better to use a consistent terminology (and we can still use redirections for well-known non-ambiguous stations). The "/" notation still sounds like an "or" to me. BernardM 19:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly, the MTA uses the "/" notation, at least in some places (see [1], for example). There's nothing that says we need to follow the MTA's style, but it is at least evidence of prior art. --RoySmith 20:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it won't be that ambiguous if the first sentence of the article gives the true name, writen in bold. So we're going to use "Pelham Parkway / Williamsbridge Road (New York Subway)"? Everybody's ok? BernardM 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I already did a little checking. As noted above, Paris Metro includes (Paris Metro) in each station article. London Underground and Tokyo Metro do not.--RoySmith 19:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding (New York Subway) vs. (New York City Subway), my initial thought was that (New York City Subway) was better because I think that's the more common phrase most native New Yorkers would use (at least in my experience). On the other hand, the main Wikipedia article is titled "New York Subway" (with a redirect from "New York City Subway"), so I think we should go with that precident and use the shorter form. Looking over all the above discussion, I'd like to propose we standardize on "Station Name / Cross Street (New York Subway)" for article titles, where the "Station Name / Cross Street" part is exactly as listed on the strip maps on the MTA web site.--RoySmith 21:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. BernardM 21:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but we should use full forms like "42nd Street" instead of "42 Street" like on the strips. Also, I'm growing somewhat reluctant to call anything New York City "New York", but it's not the biggest thing.--Pharos 18:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Adding the ordinal "nd" to street numbers makes sense to me. On the "New York" vs. "New York City", I could be convinced either way. --RoySmith 19:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The "New York vs New York City" thing isn't important to me neither, but a lot of articles already use the "(New York Subway)" syntax so I guess we should use it. Another detail : we add the "/ cross street" only for ambiguous names, right? BernardM 20:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, my plan was to use the "/ cross street" on all titles, to keep them uniform. RoySmith 20:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's say we're going to use the "/ cross street" on all titles. Since we'll need to rename all articles, we can add "City" too (to "New York Subway"). I propose a new vote : "Station Name / Cross Street (New York City Subway)" for all stations.

• Support. BernardM 21:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Works for me RoySmith 21:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Sure, I'll support.--Pharos 22:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Moncrief 02:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a comment, since it's not important to me either way. While "consistency is a good thing," some stations actually include the cross street in their official name while others (most) do not. For example, 5 Avenue/53 Street is the full name of that station (on the E line). The result is a bunch of station articles where most stations are using a standard format (i.e., Station Name / Cross Street) with a small percentage following a slightly different format. For the aforementioned example, using this "/ Cross Street" format, people will, based on the template, assume that the name of that station is 5 Avenue when in fact, it is the full 5 Avenue/53 Street. It's a small nitpick, but one worth discussing before we enact an overarching policy regarding the names of these articles. Darkcore 13:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hate to even bring it up after we've reached consensus, but I'm having second thoughts on adding the ordinal. "51st Street" just looks funny to me; the "st" is ambigious, it could either be the ordinal, or it could be an abbreviation for "street", and the juxtaposition of the two almost looks like a typo (51 street street). I know I should have thought more before I said supported the idea, so I'm not really going to push for a change, but I'd just thought I'd throw it out there to see what other people thought. RoySmith 19:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "51st Street" can sound like "fifty-first street" or like "fifty-one street street", whereas "51 Street" can only sound like "fifty-one street". Moreover, "xx1st Street" is already used in several articles, so it doesn't sound that weird. BernardM 00:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't think I was going to get much traction with that idea :-) OK, I just edited the City_Island,_New_York#Bridges_and_Transportation to make a link to the (still non-existant) Pelham Bay Station article. I think I got the title right, but check it out. I made the display part of the link just the bit before the "/". RoySmith 19:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now we have to decide the way to categorize the stations. Using subcategories for the different lines seems quite obvious to me. If we do that, we'll have to decide a standard name for them. I propose "Category:Line number_or_letter / name_given_on_the_MTA_site (New York City Subway)", name_given_on_the_MTA_site being the one at http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/, except that we use "7th" instead of "7" or "seventh". For example : "Line 1 / Broadway - 7th Avenue (New York City Subway)". Do you like it? BernardM 01:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I've never heard anybody use "line 1". It would always be "the 1 train", or maybe "the 1 line", or "the 1". Could you imagine Duke Ellington singing, "Take the Line A"? "A-Train" is a subway line. "A-Line" is a kind of skirt. So, I'd go for something like "1 Train / Broadway - 7th Avenue (New York City Subway)". Short form (for display in links) could be just "1 Train". RoySmith 19:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize "Line 1" sounds that weird (english isn't my native language). I'm ok with your proposition. BernardM 20:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the common practice is to speak of the A train, 1 train etc, (which are specific services stopping at different stations at different times), even though the MTA can call them "lines". I suggest we use the world "line" to refer to the actual physical lines that the stations are located along, like Broadway - 7th Avenue, as most stations are serviced by more than one of the alphanumeric trains. To really see organization, see: www.nycsubway.org, but I hope we do not end up just having a poorer alternative to this. BTW, as the subway discussions are growing rather long, I suggest we move them to their own page. Agreed?--Pharos 06:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. And I agree, we should move this discussion to another page. BernardM 14:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest the stations should be in the following categories (possibly not with these names though): Culver, Brighton, West End, Pelham, Lexington, 4th Avenue [Brooklyn], etc. After all, these are constant, whereas designations (A, B, C, etc.) change. —msh210 18:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Similarly, the station articles' names, assuming (as seems to be the trend, and I agree with it) that some indication of what line it's on is included, should include the line name (Culver, etc.) rather than the designation (1, etc.), as the latter change. —msh210 18:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just thought I would make my two cents known, as the person who wrote most of the NYC subway articles. I am highly against using the street address to name the station. First of all , the point of the article titles is to convey the name of the station. With a few rare exceptions, the name of the station has little to do with its street address. It is both factually wrong, and inconsitant. Furthermore, the way I designed the stations to be named, the express stations, as they serve ALL trains on a certain line, should be indicated with the colour of the track used, while local trains should be indicated with the lines that stop there, which is why you see 125th Street (Green Line), but Spring Street (6 line). I highly disapprove of using anything OTHER than the actual subway station name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZFUN (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 January 2005

Subway-line articles' names

The subway lines' articles currently are by the designation (1, 2, A, B, etc.) (see Category:New York City Subway Lines for a list). Since designations can (and do!) change, I think that's a bad way to title the articles. Better, imo, would be to call the articles Lexington local, Brighton express, etc. The designation's article (e.g., 1 (New York Subway)) can either redirect to the correct article or be a short list/history of which lines have been called "1". —msh210 18:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I honestly think that's a very bad way to do it. I've done most of the work on the individual subway line pages, and if you asked the average New Yorker what the Brighton Express was, they would have absolutely no idea. It is quite rare that the subway line name should change, and if so, it's very easy to move the page. Páll 20:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's actually quite common for the designation to change: it's happened every few years recently. And as for your contention that peopel don't call it the Brighton Express, (a) that's its name anyway, and (b) no one calls it the "green line". If you insist on not using "Lexington", at least use "4, 5, 6" ro something like that. (There are, in fact, two greens! — the 4/5/6 and the G.) —msh210

I just realized this page exists; you here may want to look at the discussion on Talk:New York Subway. Basically we've determined the official line names for all but a few stations, and are going with the format Name ({division} {line} station), as in 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station). A sample disambiguation page is at 59th Street (New York Subway). --SPUI 02:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on this page. Thanks to User:RoySmith for pointing me here. I'm writing an article now to help people understand the differing nomenclature the TA uses for lines, routes and stations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standardization

The project page says:

For subway stations, use <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>). The most commonly-used form of each station name should be used. This will usually be the name on maps or schedules (except under exceptional circumstances, which should be discussed on this project's talk page).

This is somewhat contradictory, because the "most commonly-used form of each station name" will often not be the full name on the published maps and timetables. However, the latter standard (the "official name" on the published literature) seems sensible, and one that the article pages appear to follow for the most part.

This must have been Larry V's intent when he renamed East 143rd Street (IRT Pelham Line) to East 143rd Street-St. Mary's Street (IRT Pelham Line) on April 21, 2006. However, when I altered the info box to match the article name, Larry V reverted it, saying that "St. Mary's Street is not part of station signage."

It is well known that the MTA's signage is not 100% consistent. I think a far more verifiable standard is to:

1. Name the articles consistent with the documented name in MTA literature
2. Use that name as the first bolded reference in the article body
3. Also use that name in the info box

For the general encyclopedia reader, this will enhance readability and minimize confusion. Furthermore, it is a verifiable standard, as anyone working in this area will be able to see where we are consistent. Right now, what we have is most definitely a hodge-podge. None of us has the time to visit every station to see if the MTA has consistently used the official name in every piece of signage. Deviations from those names aren't documented anywhere, and hence, aren't verifiable.

Instead, even though East 143rd Street-St. Mary's Street has been renamed to match the MTA literature, the info box has its shorter "colloquial" name, and the article begins:

East 143rd Street (also known as East 143rd Street–St. Mary's Street) is a station on the IRT Pelham Line of the New York City Subway.

This contradicts the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which suggests, "If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article...." Therefore, the article should begin:

East 143rd Street–St. Mary's Street is a station on the IRT Pelham Line of the New York City Subway.

It seems almost obvious that the Infobox should use this title too, bringing everything into agreement.

Lastly, I would suggest that trivial abbreviations of the name should not burden the article's leading topic sentence. These colloquialisms aren't consistently included anyway. There are examples like:

71st-Continental Avenue–Forest Hills (often referred to simply as Forest Hills–71st Avenue)

But there is no such parenthetical shortening at:

163 St-Amsterdam Ave is a New York Subway station located in Washington Heights, one of the northermost neighborhoods in Manhattan.

And, most oddly:

207th Street (commonly known as Inwood–207th Street and formerly as Washington Heights–207th Street) is the northern terminal of the IND Eighth Avenue Line and the A service

In this case, the purported "common name" is, in fact, the opposite of the truth. The common name is just plain 207th Street. There are many, many examples of similar confusion.

In summary, I suggest that the article title, topic sentence, and infobox should use the documented title in MTA literature, or whatever standard title we agree upon in exceptional cases. Trivial abbreviations need not be stated, or shoudl be put somewhere that they don't interfere with readability. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I used to have an issue with the MTA literature names, since they usually don't bother to update station signage to match, but I don't really care anymore. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, when you say "None of us has the time to visit every station to see if the MTA has consistently used the official name in every piece of signage" … speak for yourself buddy =) I've been to basically every subway station for the express purpose of checking station signage. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with the suggestion, and sorry for over-generalizing. Yes, I know there are people who've been to every station, but of course there are sometimes unannounced changes to the signage!!! Marc Shepherd 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You were quite justified in overgeneralizing, I'm just a little crazy. And I did notice some signage changes up on Pelham the last time I went… notably at Westchester Square-East Tremont. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Obviously, we need infoboxes/succession boxes for the stations. I suggest a right-aligned infobox that includes information about the station, and contains the succession box within it.

As for templates, I'd suggest something like {{Lexington Avenue Line local}} to be 4 5 6. That way, if the MTA moves one of those somewhere else, we only need to update the template and not every station page on the Lexington Avenue Line.

We also need some standardization. First of all, colors when referring to lines (in station listings and general info). Standard html colors seem to work except for yellow (too bright) and light green. I suggest bfbf00 for yellow (N Q R W) and 7fff00 for light green (G). Also, do we want separate grays for shuttles vs. the L, or is one fine?

There's also standardization of station names; the two options are on the main project page. I much prefer the latter (using the line name).

Here are my other suggestions for standardization, which I have used in Eighth Avenue Line:

• Dates are to be Month Day, Year.
• Whenever a service is mentioned in an article, other than in some sort of table, if should be black and bolded to stand out from the other words.
• Articles about services are to mainly concentrate on describing which lines the services run along (and have run along). The line pages are responsible for station listings to avoid duplication of tables, and to reduce work when a service or line changes.
• Temporary outages due to standard events like maintenance and weather are not to be listed, except maybe for a section describing standard procedure in such a case. Outages that are unplanned or due to major construction, especially those that last long (like the recent fire on the Eighth Avenue Line), are to be considered as changes in services and tables and articles should be updated thus.

Please comment on the above, and anything else about the format of Eighth Avenue Line. --SPUI 22:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For an example of what I mean by templates for the lines, have a look at the source of the Station listing section of Lexington Avenue Line. If the R is moved to the 63rd Street Line, for instance, all that has to be changed is Template:NYCS Broadway 60th (to remove the R) and Template:NYCS 63rd (to add the R), and all station listings that refer to these lines will be updated. I'm going to start working on a list of all these templates. --SPUI 04:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to me like a very good idea. I'll be looking to see what you do with it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates has all the IND ones. I'm taking a break now. --SPUI 06:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've started playing around with infoboxes; my first attempt is on 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) (map links are nonfunctional due to it not being a template yet). --SPUI 09:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as colors go, it's a simple matter to take the colors from the pictures on the MTA site. I did so years ago, and the results are at http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ascii_map.css :

.av6{color:#ff7e00}
.av8{color:#005c9d}
.bwy{color:#fed700}
.lex{color:#008741}
.av7{color:#ff0000}
.nas{color:#aa7400}
.x14{color:#999999}
.x42{color:#940062}
.xbq{color:#93c100}
.sss{color:#000000}

(These are, respectively, 6Av, 8Av, Bway, Lex, 7Av, Nassau, 14 St, 42 St, Bk-Queens, and shuttle.) (I seem to recall hearing that the shuttles (except Rockaway) changed their colors since I've lived in NYC. If so, then my color, black, above, is wrong.) —msh210 16:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Station-Line Matches

After some digging, I'm able to match some stations to official line names:

• Lawrence Street and Court Street on the Brooklyn side are BMT 4th Avenue Line
• Jay Street station on the IND is Fulton Street Line. This implies that High Street is also considered to be on the Fulton Street Line, but haven't found that definitively.

  Wait, so what about Court St (the transit museum)? Or has the Fulton Street Line been redefined since that station closed? --SPUI 08:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  I don't know whether Jay St. was always considered part of the Fulton Street Line or whether this is recent. The chaining letter into both Court Street and the Jay Street express tracks is the same ("A") FWIW. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The outer end of the Eastern Parkway Line is called the New Lots Line, though I can't find whether this starts at Nostrand Avenue or at Utica Avenue.

I'll post more as I find it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, these are all from official MTA sources, right? --SPUI 08:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using MTA capital plans for 2000-2004 and 2005-2008, bid notices for improvements to individual stations where I can find them and other public filings. I just discovered one thing that surprised me: they now describe all stations on the Broadway-Brooklyn Line as Jamaica Line, beginning from Marcy Ave. So no more Broadway L or Broadway-Brooklyn Line, a designation that goes back 120 years. They also consistently refer to the Broadway Line as the "BMT Broadway Line" to disambiguate it from the Broadway-7th line, so maybe we should too. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would support either way on the BMT Broadway Line. It will probably have to be disambiguated on Wikipedia anyway at some point, since there are surely other lines elsewhere named 'Broadway Line'. --SPUI 09:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can't think of another Broadway Line (rapid transit, not trolley) in North America, yet New York has three. The Queens Blvd Line also operates under Broadway Queens for a distance, but its not called "Broadway Line" or it would be four. In the past, NY also had two entirely different Lexington Avenue Lines, and two different 3rd Avenue els! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you happen to know what division the Archer Avenue Line is considered to be in? Or is it split between the two (totally disconnected) levels? --SPUI 09:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two separate divisions. the upper level uses IND chaining (D--from the Queens Line) and radio channel, the lower BMT chaining (J--from the Jamaica Line) and radio channel. I would consider the possibility that the lower level is still considered Jamaica Line, but I have absolutely no reference one way or the other on that.

When and if they ever extend the lines eastward, the BMT J tracks will continues more or less straight while the IND tracks were to curve to the right (in fact they do, but dead end) to connect to the LIRR Atlantic Branch. That's pretty much a dead-letter now. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

Hmmm, looks like the 53rd Street Line is now part of the Queens Boulevard Line. "Significant station rehabilitations in the 2000-2004 program include: Phase two of the Times Square complex and the Lexington Avenue station (Queens Boulevard line) in Manhattan; the Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street complex in Queens; and the DeKalb Avenue station in Brooklyn."[2]

Well, that's a narrative description. I also found such a reference (one) to the "Smith St. Line" but all the contract specs and line items I can find now say "Culver" The only things we are apt to find that are dependable are contract items or legal filings, where line name precision has legal consequence. For example, I haven't found a (non-narrative) reference to the New Lots Line, which I previously mentioned, but I did find a contract line-item for Utica Avenue as Eastern Parkway Line. Therefore I think we should keep the line to New Lots as Eastern Parkway until we find otherwise.

That same page calls the Houston Street Line part of the Sixth Avenue Line: "This includes $25 million for a new passenger transfer in Manhattan between the Broadway/Lafayette Street (B,D,F,Q) station on the 6th Avenue line and the uptown Bleecker Street (6) station on the Lexington Avenue line."

The problem with short lines like Houston and 53rd Street is that have few stations, so we might not have a current contract reference to show what it's called internally. Until we come up with such a reference, I belive we should use the traditional or construction name (this is a Wiki, we cahnge change it if we find out different). This is especially useful as disambiguation, as designating 53rd as "Queens Boulevard Line" confuses between 53rd and 63rd, both of which run only into the Queens Blvd. Line. With Houston, this is also dab, and accurate (IMO). At W4, the 8th Avenue Line continues south on 6th Avenue, while the "6th Avenue Line" would turn east onto Houston, if chose that line name. The A train is now sometimes operating on the Houston Street Line during repairs.

It also uses Broadway-BMT Line rather than BMT Broadway. --SPUI 10:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either is right by me, since it is essentially used to distinguish it from Bway-7th. I'm guessing this is also why they're now calling Broadway-Brooklyn "Jamaica Line." Historically, the line was "Broadway BMT Subway." It even had its own logo on the station booths. I'm sure this was to let people know that it wasn't the IRT Broadway, nor was it the Brooklyn Flavor, which at that time was often simply called "Broadway L." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another question - are you sure the branch to Far Rockaway is the Far Rockaway Branch? The only references I see to that name are to the connecting LIRR branch. --SPUI 10:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it's been called since 1956 (even though the line only went to Wavecrest until 1957). It's a disambiguation. Consider the alternate, the branch has no other name (e.g.., "Mott Avenue branch") nor is it the "mainline" of the Rockaway Line. Actually there was no Far Rockaway Line (LIRR) or Far Rockaway Branch (subway) before the LIRR quit the peninsula. It all ran through to Valley Stream. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through a few documents and compiled the results at User:SPUI/New York City Subway lines (feel free to add to it). A couple interesting notes:

• 6AV clearly includes Houston Street
• 8AV probably includes the old Washington Heights Line (the specific entry is 'Tun Ltg: 125th-168th St 8AV'
• Depending on what 'Park Pl/Albany St' means, BW7 may include the branch to Brooklyn
• RKY includes both Rockaway branches
• QBL includes the 53rd Street Subway

--SPUI 23:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• [3] clearly lists 168th as 8AV (page 36). I'm not going to add all the extra info from that to my table right now, but I probably will later, in case there are other revelations. --SPUI 23:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The folks at nyc.transit should be able to answer any questions about subway lines. —msh210 17:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Length of the Route/Line table

Páll posted this on my talk page:

Hey, I really wanted to thank you for cleaning up the table, however I have a few concerns, namely I feel that the table is WAY TOO BIG now as it stands. Do you have any ideas how we can reduce the amount of space it takes up? I tried deleting the space in between all of the different routes, but that makes the information kind of clunky looking. But I really think something has to be done. Thanks! Páll 22:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My reaction is that I'm not certain. I can think of ways to reduce it, mainly by letting the route descriptions "run" and putting the nominal "route" desctipyion at the top of Line(s) column, removing a column, but that would make the format much harder to follow, IMO. On my monitor the entire article takes up about 20 screens and the table five of those, so the table is 1/4 of the article, but contains a mountain of information in a fairly concise format, I believe. Remember we've got 27 or so routes there, and we can follow any one from terminal to terminal in a fairly small area.

I think maybe instead of trying to figure our ways to squeeze down the table, maybe we could pull out the history section to a separate article. Thoughts? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I agree in principal that yes, there is a lot of information in the table, on my 15" laptop screen, the table is almost overwheling. I know that you did not like it, but I think the best soltuion may be to make the route information small like it was previously. What do you think? Páll 23:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could see the lines column being removed from the table and put on individual pages (or in a chart elsewhere) - then we'd have three columns, route, uptown terminal, and downtown terminal. The lines aren't all that useful in that table; all that's presented to the public is already in the route column. Maybe a page specifically dealing with the lines and which one goes where would be useful. --SPUI 23:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think in our article someone would be looking for more than is printed on The Map. And remember The Map includes a map ;-) so you can see where these services run. The table also educates the researcher about the lines with links to line articles. The trains themselves now mention the branch names, at least on the IND/BMT -- I haven't studied the latest readings on the IRT. Route information such as the bland "Q Broadway Express", "N Broadway Express" is actually pretty meaningless, and is redundant to the route colors which give the exact same information. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also think the current information should go before the history. People looking for information about the subway are more likely to want info on how it currently works. --SPUI 23:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We need a decision on the infobox, and soon!

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#nested templates? - we can't use the line templates without using subst: for the infoboxes. Which means we need to determine the look ASAP. 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) contains my version; please comment. --SPUI 18:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your version just fine. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As do I.&lt;nowiki></nowiki> —msh210 17:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think the template should indicate both (a) whether the station is wheelchair-accessible form the street and (b) whether it's wheelchair-accessible for transfers. I've made Image:Accessible.png for that purpose, but don't know what to do with it. —msh210 15:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've come up with a decent method of using it, detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway#Stations. I would really like a few more people to comment on it before it gets widespread use. --SPUI 20:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the recent addition of the borough ([4]). As for accessibility, hmmm. I'd say if it's accessible from the street, put the symbol in the title area (along with (downtown only) or whatever if necessary. If accessibility is complicated, or only exists for transfers, I think that should only go in the text - technically every station with more than one route on the same platform is accessible for transfers (unless there are space constraints). I'm not even sure I've found all the useful ones for transfers, and there are several places (like G to the others on the Queens Blvd Line) where there's more than one choice of where to transfer. I also think there should be an accessibility section in the article for each line; if we do that we should be able to systematically find all the accessible transfers. --SPUI 18:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, for transfers, why not include it next to each transfer in the transfer column? I'm updating 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) to use that. --SPUI 18:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, never mind, that one's not accessible on the Lex. I'll start a new one with the latest changes. --SPUI 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've used the latest ideas on Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line station). I also added an opening date row. Please comment on this one. --SPUI 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And a minor formatting issue - it looks a bit sloppy with the 'next northbound station' and southbound being on three lines. Maybe I should increase the width of the table, though making it too big would be bad for small windows and monitors. --SPUI 19:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only problem I have is that the name of the station on the Fourth Avenue Line is "Pacific Street" N Train strip map R Train timetable. I believe the TA puts "Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street" on "The Map" so as not to confuse people making a transfer there. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Station Naming -- Dealing with Coney Island

In considering station articles, it occurred to me that there are a handful of stations that don't entirely fit the [[Station Name (Division LineName)]].

The most outstanding example is Coney Island-Stillwell, the only station (terminal) I can think of which isn't on any line. It is actually a union terminal. Within the station confines, the tracks are lettered (A-H) and not assigned to any line. Although there have been typical line assignments for particular tracks, this has never been set in stone. The BMT D (West End) chaining ends before entering the station from the north, and so does the BMT E (Sea Beach) chaining. Both levels of the Brighton Line (BMT A) end their chaining on the curve entering the station from the west. (Yes, Brighton Line--the Culver Line (IND B) chaining ends at the curve into West 8th Street).

So how to designate Stillwell's page? Historically, Stillwell is the site of West End Depot. When the new station was opened in 1919 it was known as New West End Terminal[5]. However, [[Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT West End Line station)]] doesn't seem right to me, and separate articles for each line are just silly, unless they just briefly mention the station and services (connections, etc.) and then point to the main article. Some possibilities:

• [[Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT Union Terminal)]]
• [[Stillwell Avenue (BMT Coney Island terminal)]]
• [[Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue (BMT West End/Sea Beach/Culver/Brighton Line station)]] -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Station Naming -- Station complexes

Other than the special case of Coney Island, there are several station complexes where there really should be articles that are not line-specific, because only having line pages is constricting to a description of the complex. I thought about this in considering an article about Broadway Junction, which is now the name given to all three stations at that location. While we can have articles for each line individually, there is also some need to describe the entire complex, where it has a unique history, and/or an interesting complexity. Other such stations are Queenboro Plaza, Grand Central, Times Square, and I'm sur we can think of others. How about:

• [[Broadway Junction (BMT/IND station complex))]] or
• [[Broadway Junction (NYC Subway station complex))]] or
• [[Broadway Junction (NYC Subway station complex BMT-IND)]] ? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about that, and I think I'd go with the following:

• Write an article about the station for each separate line; otherwise the infobox is rather big (and some of the formatting doesn't work, say if only one of the lines is handicapped-accessible). Discuss elements specific to that line on those pages, and link them to a page about the complex that discusses common elements. Though, thinking about it, maybe the infobox could be split, with the common elements at the top and then each piece in a separate section detailing that part of the station. With the necessity of using subst: we can get away with some minor changes.
• We could use Station (New York City Subway station), or are there some complexes that share names with individual stations? From a cursory glance, it doesn't look like it. Right now a few of those are disambigs, like Grand Central-42nd Street (New York City Subway); those could easily be changed to common pages.

• The number 1 complex I can think of where the stations don't share common names is Broadway-Nassau. The TA already solved the problem of Broadway Junction for us. Likewise Canal St. BMT (the bridge station used to be known as Broadway). The downtown will get more complicated when the open the new complex near the WTC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• If the lines are simply joined by one or two passageways, a common page isn't needed.

• I figure that goes without saying. I had in mind complexes (Times Square and Broadway Junction) which have a history of their own. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The special case of Coney Island would be handled by redirecting all the individual lines to the common page. And I'd recommend treating the lower level from the east as the Culver Line and describing it on the Culver Line page, even if it's technically not, since it no longer connects to the Brighton Line except at the terminal. --SPUI 07:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Line templates

Oh, by the way I've finished with the templates for all IND and IRT lines, and listed them on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates. --SPUI 07:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great job! Thanks for doing all the tedious work! —msh210 18:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subway Line Tables

Hey, I just checked and it seems that the subway tables have all been changed from HTML to Wikipedia table formatting. While I think it's a good thing, I have a couple of issues with the new table formats that I'd like to makre sure everyone agrees with. First of all, I think the use of "free transfer to" is redundant and not necessary, as I have never been on a subway system in the world where you have to pay to transfer to another subway line within the same system (and I've been on quite a few). Second of all, I do not like the tables left-justified and would prefer them centred. What do people think? Thanks! Páll 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 'free transfer to' wording is to distinguish it from MetroCard-only transfers and transfers to other systems (specifically PATH). The 'transfer to' text is needed to allow that column to include more than just transfers, like former names. --SPUI 01:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think all those "free transfer to" lines are a bit overwhelming. We do assume free transfers on the New York Subway. I think we could have a top line about the free transfers and elsewhere say "Metrocard transfer only" and "connection to PATH" which says "it's there but there's no transfer." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Maybe for clarity change the last column heading to 'Transfers & Notes'? --SPUI (talk) 21:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All IRT on the all stations list

I believe I've completed copying all of the IRT stations from the service lists to the full list. It needs to be checked for errors, though. - UtherSRG 02:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Station listings

I'm beginning to question whether it's a good idea to have station listings only on the line pages. I'm thinking that, except in cases like the 7 and L, where the line is equivalent with the service, the service page should have a less informative station listing. Then one thing that would be spelled out on the service page is the times that each station is served by the specific service. It would require a bit more work when services change, but would have a lot more utility. What do others think? --SPUI (talk) 09:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you proposing? That the station listings go on the line pages as well? Or where? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currently the idea was to have them only on the line pages (at least that's what I was doing) to avoid duplication. However, I'm proposing to also include a bare-bones station listing on the service pages, without all the information on the line pages, but with station names, transfers and when the service serves each station. --SPUI (talk) 11:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about putting all the information in a series of templates so that the update happens in one place, but the information can be in two places? - UtherSRG 15:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good thing, IMO, but it would require a large number of templates to allow for line name changes and service changes. I think SPUI already made a large number of these templates--I don't know how many more might be needed to use the templates for both lines and services. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about using templates for that, and it really doesn't seem all that possible, especially when the 'time of day' column will change per route. Thinking about it a bit more, the templates will still be used in the 'transfers' column, so is say V service changes, only the V page has to be updated; the other tables, of this sort and on line pages, will update with the templates. --SPUI (talk) 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A first draft is at R (New York City Subway). --SPUI (talk) 00:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Most if not all stations on the Flushing Line have two articles. For instance, 103rd Street-Corona Plaza (New York Subway) and 103rd Street-Corona Plaza (IRT Flushing Line). I'll merge these if/when I feel like it. --SPUI (talk) 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've done this; the articles now need cleanup (but so do the majority of station articles). --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Night service

Some services only serve stations at night (for instance the A serves local C stops at night). I think these should be somehow included in the line templates (just as rush-hour services use {{NYCS Z rush}} for example), maybe as {{NYCS blue|A|(A)}}. Any other ideas? --SPUI (talk) 04:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be convenient to include this in templates, but I think we're confusing the matter too much, rather like the old railroads timetables (which I used often) where you had to weave through a mass of symbols and notes to find out if the train you wanted to take to someplace went where you wanted when you wanted. I've ridden those late nights trains (a lot) as I was a shift worker for many years. A significant difference between rush hour variants and light night variants is that rush hour is "show time" with high ridership totals. OTOH, very few people ride in those "deep night" hours roughly from 1 am to 5 am. In order to maintain service to all stations (except four) 24/7/365 requires some odd services that are of no meaning to almost all riders. Example, the late night only Lefferts Avenue shuttle.

I suggest we do like many transit properties who have "owl" maps and schedules and have a "late night" article and map to describe what these specialized services are like. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking in terms of the transfer column on station listings. I guess adding to service articles which services use the same route at nights (if it's a different one) should be enough. --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, which four stations are closed at night? I know at least two are on the Nassau Street Line, but Canal Street has to be open for transfers to the others. --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Broad Street and Fulton Street on the Nassau Street Line are closed weekends but upon all night weekdays. Go figure. 145th and Lenox Terminal on the 3 are closed at night. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Station infoboxes

I've gone through all the stations on the Lexington Avenue Line and added infoboxes. I also wrote a small tutorial at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway#Stations. I'd like a final look-over before I go and add them to other lines. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to change naming convention for lines

I'm thinking that it might be better to name the lines with the division at the front, like BMT Brighton Line. This would solve the disambiguation problem (for instance, there is another Brighton Line in the UK). It would also allow separate pages for the two 63rd Street Lines and Archer Avenue Lines. Existing links wouldn't need to be changed (except in cases of forced disambiguation, like when the Brighton Line article gets created for the UK line), but linking to the full form would be encouraged. This would also be consistent with the station naming convention. --SPUI (talk) 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree :) It would also be clearer when we deal with the Broadway L, the Lexington Avenue L (but call these BRT or BMT? And what about the els in Manhattan (IRT or Manhattan Elevated?) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say just go with the three systems that they ended up as, or would have if they weren't abandoned (i.e. some of the Brooklyn els). --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Multi-line complex example

I've applied my ideas to Grand Central-42nd Street (New York City Subway), having it as one page for all three lines. --SPUI (talk) 16:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

objection to colored links

I think most of the work that was done here is great, but I'd like to put in a strong (but respectful) objection to the use of colored text for links to subway lines. There already is a convention for colors of links; things in blue are links, things in red are links to non-existent articles, and visited links get some kind of purple. I find the line-based use of color to just be confusing, since it conflicts with this scheme. It's cute, but I think it detracts from usability, which should be paramount in an encyclopedia. A NYC native might "get it", but to a casual encyclopedia user, it's just visual noise. From a purely visual perspective, I also don't like the tutti-fruiti effect it gives to a page. --RoySmith 12:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I pretty much agree. It looked nice at first, but began to get annoying after a while. It won't be hard to change either. Anyone else want to weigh in? --SPUI (talk) 13:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with RoySmith. —msh210 15:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with RoySmith. It's a usability issue, and the idea of the colors in adequately presented in charts, color bullets, etc. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shuttle articles

Would anyone object to moving the shuttle articles, such as S 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) to 42nd Street Shuttle? --SPUI (talk) 14:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or alternately IRT 42nd Street Shuttle. --SPUI (talk) 14:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the articles describe the line more than the service, of course. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that I already wrote a separate article for BMT Franklin Avenue Line for its history and physical description. What's left on the S Franklin Avenue Shuttle page could be merged onto the general shuttles article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the 42nd and Franklin shuttles, there's not much to say about the service that's not also about the line. Any idea if it's currently called the Franklin Avenue Line or Shuttle?

As for the Rockaway Park Shuttle, I could see keeping that where it is, as it's only part of the Rockaway Line. --SPUI (talk) 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming aside, are there any objections to merging S Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service) and BMT Franklin Avenue Line? --SPUI (talk) 16:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Participation

I'm interested in participating here. What type of work is available for someone new to the project? What can I do? -Etoile 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to do and your level of knowledge. For grunt work, there are still a bunch of line articles to be written or that need station listings. A lot of the station articles need infoboxes if you want to do that. Or you can just look at the existing articles and work on what looks interesting. --SPUI (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just posted an initial article for the 4th Av B'lyn line (my first for Wikipedia -- and this explains my screen name). After wallowing through these pages, I see I was inconsistent in certain areas. I have no objections having this initial article conformed to a template (if one exists) for the actual distinctly named lines.--FourthAve 7 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

my bits =

I've done all the undone articles, save Rockaway, tho in the case of the Pelham and Jerome Av lines I've only done the stations. And none of you have talked to me. I am even down to doing station articles.--FourthAve 10:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Bus connections

Hi, I'm new to this WikiProject, and I thought I could help, seeing as how I love the NYC subway system. Question about the infobox: How should bus connections be handled? Should they be included in the listbox, or only buses that go to LGA or JFK, or what? I know that maybe listing bus connections for Manhattan stations would be a bit tedious, but stations in the other boroughs often have just one or two buses serving them. What do you think? --the ROOT 18:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If it goes to the airport, it belongs in the infobox. Anything else, should be listed seperatly. Pacific Coast Highway 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I love resurrecting old crap, and that's what I'm gonna do right here. What do you mean by listed seperatly? Do you mean like [181st Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) here]? Is there some easy way to find the connections of bus and subway trains (other than the stupid bus map)? --Alphachimp ^talk 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't any set way to list bus connections, although the format I favor goes something like at Briarwood–Van Wyck Boulevard:

• Bus via [street(s)] to [terminal A] or via [street(s)] to [terminal B]

"Bus" would naturally be the bus name, linked to the appropriate bus depot. The streets would be major parts of the bus route. The terminals would usually be neighborhood names or transit centers. Personally, I see no need to specify buses by station exit. The individual line listings at the MTA website show bus/rail connections for each station, although you still have to refer elsewhere for the terminal/route information. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Where on the MTA website can I find the bus/rail connections for each station? I looked a little yesterday, but couldn't find anything. The two stations I started yesterday were done from the bus map pdf from the mta site (that takes a really long time, especially at bus hubs). I agree that listing by station exit is a bad idea.

I was thinking about making NYCT bus template, similar to the NYCS template that the subways have. It would input the information that you are talking about above, in a little bit of a quicker and easier format. What would you think of that? --Alphachimp ^talk 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is a great idea; so great, in fact, that I just wrote one up at Template:NYCS bus, with documentation coming soon at the talk page. However, I'd ask you to just refrain from using it just at this moment, until I write up the documentation and make sure there aren't any bugs. (As you can see by looking at the template code, I used ParserFunctions to show/hide information as needed; this type of coding is prone to logic or typing errors.) ... Line information can be found starting at the MTA's online subway map; clicking on the desired station will take you to the corresponding line's page, and bus info is right there. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks a lot for the great work. I'll hang on until you give me the all clear, and then I'll start working on putting bus connections into the individual articles (A Train first). The MTA link worked...I'm a little bit confused about some of the connections listed, because it seems that some things are missing. --Alphachimp ^talk 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, missing? Do you have any examples? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. This article, for instance. On the MTA Site that station has no connections. According the bus map and previous edits, though, it is connected to 4 buses. I don't get it. --Alphachimp ^talk 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the MTA has different ideas about what constitutes a "connection." Even the bus schedules of those buses don't include a mention of 181st Street station. From the bus map, it doesn't look like 181st Street is really that close to any of those buses, anyway; seems like a moderate walk is involved for each of them, except maybe the M4 and M98, but I can't be sure without actually going up there and checking it out. What I'm thinking is that the buses might be reasonably "connectable," but their routes or stops might be too far away from station exits for the MTA to consider them as connections. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I went there recently. The M4 and M98 stops are 50-100 ft. at most from the station entrances. Are those templates ready? If not I'll just start working without them, and substiute them later. --Alphachimp ^talk 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the fact that those two buses run along Fort Washington Avenue at that point, parallel with the Eighth Avenue Line. It looks like when a bus runs along the same route as a subway line, the MTA lists the bus connection at the first station on the list where the bus and subway run together (here, 190th Street), then again at the last station (168th Street). It's the same way with the Q32 and the {{NYCS service|7}} (listed at 82nd Street-Jackson Heights and Queensborough Plaza). By the way, the template seems pretty much ready; have fun with it. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See Briarwood-Van Wyck Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line) for my first usage of Template:NYCS bus. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way we could keep from typing all of the data over and over? I'm thinking something like making a template for each bus line and then inputting that into the individual articles. It could use the exact same format (your format is perfect!). That way, there would also be a category (stops on the xx bus line) or something like that. Alphachimp ^talk 03:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I produced an example of what I'm talking about here. It uses your template, but would simplify the input of data greatly. --Alphachimp ^talk 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of the bus template in action. It uses your basic template for establish the individual line template. It might be able to make things quite a bit easier. --Alphachimp ^talk 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice example. But what about crazy service variants? (see Bx12) Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol. I have no friggin clue. I guess that you can just append any other weird stuff to the template...or just not use it at all. Alphachimp ^talk 11:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your idea is a good idea in principle; in practice, though, there might be a few problems. Firstly, there will have to be a template for nearly every single bus route in New York City — 321 in all! If you don't want to count Staten Island local buses, since only a couple connect to a subway station (86th Street on the BMT Fourth Avenue Line), it still comes out to 268 buses! Needless to say, that's a lot of buses, and a lot of small templates that will each be used in something like two or three articles. Secondly, each template will have general service information about each route. In some cases, this would be fine (perhaps in a list of NYC bus services), but I'm not too sure that this would be best for listing service information in station articles. For instance, at the 190th Street article, the M4 info includes Fifth Avenue to the Cloisters/Fort Tryon. At some point, yes, the M4 runs on Fifth Avenue. But from 190th Street, the northbound M4 pretty much only has Fort Washington Avenue left.

I know that my way involves a lot of work; however, I think that is unavoidable if each station is to have customized bus info. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox padding?

Hey, is there an easy way to get some padding onto these infoboxes? The text runs right up next to them and it doesn't look very neat. ---root15 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Transportation in NYC as US Collaboration of the Week

The Transportation in New York City article is nominated as the United States Collaboration of the Week and deserves recognition for all the work that has been done to get this article up to snuff, and maybe ultimately to Featured article status. It's got potential: a compelling topic; thorough coverage of the material; better crafted sections linking to main articles; interesting pictures. Now all it needs is votes! As of now, West Viriginia has 12 votes, Rhode Island has 11 and TransNYC has just 3!?!? Rhode Island? West Virginia? Fuggedaboutit! Show your support and vote! C'mon, this is New York we're talking about. Once these other articles have been honored we need to have the votes for future recognition. Alansohn 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template

I was very impressed with Geoking66's new infobox design; in order to streamline the infobox-adding process a bit, I've created a template based on it: Infobox NYCS. Examples can be found at Main Street-Flushing, 74th Street-Broadway, and 61st Street-Woodside. A warning: It is a little complicated at first glance; however, it is really not exceptionally difficult to understand. If anyone has any questions or comments about the infobox, feel free to ask me. —Larry V 07:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Talk)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Station naming under infoboxes

I would just like to see what the general feeling is regarding the names of stations as given in the article infoboxes. Do you think that the ordinal suffixes should be included (e.g., "42nd Street–Times Square") or left off (e.g., "42 Street–Times Square")? I personally think that they should be included. The name is "Forty-Second Street," not "Forty-Two Street." The MTA refers to stations like this in official documents; anywhere where they are left off are usually to preserve space (e.g, The Map and tables in documents). I also believe that they are left off of station signage so as not to confuse non-English speakers—and I have to assume that people who are reading the English Wikipedia speak English. —Larry V (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Article naming (again *sigh*)

I've been thinking about the system for article naming, and I have to say that I would agree with the point brought up by --Aude at Talk:New York City Subway#Service?. I find that the format Station (Line station) sometimes gets a little lengthy, and in my opinion somewhat unaesthetic. I think that the label "station" is entirely unnecessary and need not be included in the names of the articles; I feel that the Washington Metro style (Station (Washington Metro)) is far more elegant, and does not lack anything that the current NYC system (with "station") has.

Seeing as how responses to discussion topics sometimes never come, I plan on altering the policy at WP:NYCS on station article naming, if no one provides any substantial argument to the contrary. —Larry V (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm, but it might take a while to get to all of them. And not to mention templates that need to be changed. Oh, boy... On second thought, NO it will cause major problems. If you had lets say hypothetically, 14th Street (New York City Subway) for the Eighth Avenue Line, how would you create the same for the other 14th Street stations on the IRT Braodway-Seventh Avenue Line, IND Sixth Avenue Line, and so on? And I doubt you can put two articles in one namespace.Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No no, you misunderstand my proposal. I simply used the Washington Metro articles as an example of station articles that did not have the additional "station" added to the end of the title. I would only use "New York City Subway" for articles that describe station complexes that serve multiple lines (e.g., 42nd Street-Times Square or Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue). The general syntax for names would be Station (Line). Using your example, the 14th Street stations would be:

• 14th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
• 14th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)
• 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line)
• 14th Street-Union Square (New York City Subway) (one article encompassing the entire complex)

—Larry V (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As for getting to all of the articles ... well, sometimes I have a lot of time on my hands. Plus, I've been tediously going through all of them and adding my infobox template (Template:Infobox NYCS), so it's not much more difficult to rename each page as I go through. Changing the templates shouldn't be too much of a problem, seeing as how each move operation will leave a redirect to the new page; even if one insists on changing the templates to point to the true page name, it certainly won't be a pressing matter. Anyway, if no one minds, I'll change the "official" policy on article naming at WP:NYCS. —Larry V (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Station naming conventions

I understand this:

For subway stations, use Station Name (Division_Name Line_Name), exactly as given in the MTA New York City Subway schedules

but can someone explain why 42nd Street-Grand Central directly violates this, as it says Grand Central-42nd Street on the 4, 5, 6, and 7 schedules? Note: The 42nd Street Shuttle recognizes it as Grand Central alone. Pacific Coast Highway|^{fo' shizza} 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I really should have made that MUCH clearer. The standard I'm actually working with is to use the station name more or less as signed at the station itself (with ordinal adjectives and street names spelled out, of course). I believe that the signage at Grand Central says "42 St-Grand Central"—thus, the article is named "42nd Street-Grand Central." I have followed this convention with such stations as:

• 207th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line), usually given as "Inwood-205 St"
• 225th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line), which is signed "225 Street" but is "Marble Hill-225 St" on schedules and maps
• 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line), usually given as "Van Cortlandt Park-242nd Street"
• Others, besides

I should clarify the policy for that one. Thanks for pointing it out. —Larry V (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the former policy is less confusing, well for the public so to speak. Pacific Coast Highway|^word) 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

None taken. Well, there are very few, if any, stations in which the names are so different that people would be confused. For instance, I seriously doubt whether anyone will be confused over 42nd Street-Grand Central / Grand Central-42nd Street. My reason for using the actual station signage is that I believe that what is signed is as close to the station's "actual" name as we could get, seeing as how MTA documentation varies in its use of ordinal adjectives, supplementary terms (e.g., "Grand Central," "Flushing," "Wakefield," etc.). —Larry V (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, a map would be the ONLY piece of documentation to rely on. I say maybe we should adopt a policy similar to what was established at WikiProject Stations:

The lead paragraph shall include the name of the station as it appears on the system map, and not a short-hand name, but those can and should be mentioned later. It shall also mention the system, the city or area, and the line the station lies on, and, if notable, the location on that line. The next information should be the area served by the station, and major establishments and attractions near it. A list of lesser but still notable places should be supplied later. The date service began should probably be here. Notable historic events specific to that rail station should go in the next paragraph. A table should exist, displaying the line(s) and the next stations on that line, with a link to the appropriate line.

While I do agree with you about signs in the stations, and the actual name, there probably is no "actual" or "official" name so to speak. In fact many of them are outdated, as Beach 67th Street, remains Beach 67th Street-Gaston on signs in the station. In that case, it's better to go with what it is most known by. Pacific Coast Highway 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did say "as close to the station's "actual" name as we could get"—I never said that there was actually an official name. =) Anyway, what you're saying about the map might hold true for other systems, but the NYC system is so complex that space restrictions often force "The Map" to abbreviate station names in some way —for instance, Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets station on the IND Fulton Street Line is shown on The Map as "Hoyt-Schermerhorn"—thus, the name on The Map is often the abbreviated name, and the name as signed in the station is longer. As for the "outdated" station names, I know that at least some of those names are being kept for historial reasons—for example, on the IRT Flushing Line:

• 33rd Street-Rawson Street
• 40th Street-Lowery Street
• 46th Street-Bliss Street
• 52nd Street-Lincoln Avenue
• 69th Street-Fisk Avenue

And again, there are almost no examples where the name as signed at the station is so radically different than that on The Map or in the schedules that someone might become confused; there might be an additional name (e.g., "Gaston" as per your example) or a rearrangement (e.g., "242nd Street–Van Cortlandt Park" instead of "Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street"), but certainly nothing too extreme. On another note, I have been vaguely following that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations policy when editing stations; while I am not currently doing complete rewrites or anything, I am adding basic information such as other common names for the station, location, the applicable line and service, the area served, and so forth. It might prove difficult to list "notable historic events" for the vast majority of stations, however, aside from the major hubs and such, of course. —Larry V (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a compromise. Whatever is the longest possible name for the station is, well use it, just to account for all possibilites. For example, if the sign says Canal Street-Holland Tunnel, and the map says Canal Street, we'll go with the sign. Or if the map's version is longer, we'll use that, or the schedule's version is, etc... I would like to keep neighborhoods first, but if you wanna suggest something, just type away. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I could work with that, but if there are any conflicts with order of terms (e.g., "Forest Hills-71st Avenue" versus "71-Continental Avenues-Forest Hills"), I would still go with the station signage order. But using the longest name seems to be a reasonable policy. As for neighborhoods, I would prefer to keep them at the end of the name, because most neighborhood labels are secondary. By this I mean that the primary name of the station is the street name, and the neighborhood only serves to supplement the street name (e.g., 82nd Street-Jackson Heights, 205th Street-Norwood, 179th Street-Jamaica, Rockaway Parkway-Canarsie, Court Street-Long Island City, etc.). This is further supported by the face that very few stations are actually signed with the neighborhood name (e.g., 205th Street, 179th Street, 225th Street [Marble Hill], Court Street [Long Island City], etc.) and that name is only appended on maps and schedules. The most notable exception that I can think of is Stillwell Avenue, which is clearly signed "Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue." —Larry V (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that we both are immovable from our posistions. I'll try to get a third party view here. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Pacific Coast Highway} 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, it seems that a third party view is lacking on this talk page. Anyway, you did open the neighborhood question up for suggestion, and I suggested—there it is. I more or less agreed to work with your suggestion to use the longest given name; it's only the neighborhoods that I'm stuck on. Another reason I prefer the neighborhoods at the end is to provide a sort of differentiation from commuter rail. Commuter rail focuses on long-distance service between neighborhoods, as demonstrated by station names such as "Woodside," "Marble Hill," and "Harlem–125th Street." The subway system does not, and provides neighborhood names mainly as supplementary terminal names. —Larry V (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm considering rock, paper, scissors. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No! I never win at rock, paper, scissors! —Larry V (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox information on project page

It seems as if my infobox template (Template:Infobox NYCS) has pretty much been accepted (or at least not rejected), so I'm thinking of replacing the information at WP:NYCS#Infoboxes. Anyone have any problems? —Larry V (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not any here. Besides, it's prettyful. : ) Pacific Coast Highway|^moo 23:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I created it (for the most part, minor edits and page go to Larry V). I think it looks much nicer and should be replaced. Geoking66 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ordinals

I think that (and I know that this has been duscussed many times) we should not use ordinals. Wouldn't it be a better idea to name the articles exactly the same way as the stations are shown on an official MTA map. Example, 125 Street instead of 125th Street. Some people think that it helps in pronunciation, but you don't write February 24th, you write February 24, but you still pronounce it as 24th. Geoking66 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no, and no. The names given are confusing, and at many stations, especially at Divison A (IRT) stations, the oridnal suffixes still remain in the mosiacs. Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Article naming ... again

I hate to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but this article naming deal is starting to bug me again. I still feel that it is best to name the articles with whatever is signed in the station itself, and simply mention other names in the first line of the article, after the initial bolded text (e.g., "95th Street (often referred to as Bay Ridge–95th Street)"), and add redirects for other common names. Maybe I have OCD or something, I don't know =) —Larry V (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you might wanna take a look at WP:NC(CN). Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense... that's kind of what I was thinking about anyway =) —Larry V (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that made everything ridiculously clear! Thanks lol —Larry V (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New York

Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for NY articles needing photos - to use it, just add {{reqphotoin|New York}} to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list NY-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful!TheGrappler 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5