User talk:Acps110

&

Just curious - what is the advantage of "&" over "&" ? I have seen many cases on many websites where the result is &amp being what is actually displayed.--JimWae (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A web browser's renderer tries to interpret "&" as HTML. "&" is an HTML escape sequence that displays "&" in plain text and tells the renderer not think of it as HTML. If the semi-colon is forgotten, then it will display incorrectly. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But & seems to work just fine on wikipedia in every browser I've ever used - and is included in the first 127 ASCII characters. The advantage seems to be within urls. --JimWae (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though most browsers can stumble over a bare & and display it properly, it's still bad form and bad HTML code. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But remember, you're writing wikitext, not HTML! The Mediawiki software will automatically convert a bare & to the proper & when it sends it to your browser. You only need to actually write & when you are writing some discussion or documentation about, say,   and want it to appear like that instead of actually rendering as a non-breaking space. Hgrosser (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of services

Excuse me, how do you count the services? I guess you ignore the <6> and <7>. Vcohen (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. The description says, "As of June 2010, the New York City Subway system has 24 lettered or numbered route designations." That means you count all the letters and numbers once, then you add the three shuttles. The <6> and <7> are not included in the count because they are not separate services. (They don't even operate in the other direction.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the logic. If we count each letter only once, why doesn't it work with the S? If it's important that they only operate in the peak direction, why doesn't it work with the Z? Maybe, it's just the official opinion of the MTA. If so, this is the only reason. Vcohen (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken down by division...

• IRT – 7 services, 1 shuttle (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 42nd St Shuttle)
• IND – 7 services, 1 shuttle (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Rockaway Park Shuttle)
• BMT – 7 services, 1 shuttle (J, L, M, N, Q, R, Z, Franklin Ave Shuttle)
• Total – 8 + 8 + 8 = 24

The Z is a separate letter, and considered a separate service by the MTA. On the map key, a diamond service is defined as "additional express service." The Z is not additional express service but a different stopping pattern. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wrong in that I tried to count myself. There are many possible ways to count the services, and the "right" one is an arbitrary decision. Vcohen (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminals and bi-directional tracks

I need to resort to your help again.

You've already seen my station layout diagrams. They are almost ready, but I've found a serious error. Some of terminal stations have two bi-directional tracks with trains short turning on them, while others look like usual stations with trains turning back behind the station. Since I show direction for each track, I need to know which of them are bi-directional. I tried to find it out for each station in the list, but didn't succeed.

Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I see your work in progress. My deep bow to you. There will be a lot of questions. Vcohen (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created a subpage for this discussion using your schematics. You may ask any questions there. (Sorry about misspelling your name.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. Thank you a bunch. Vcohen (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line)

You'd probably know this from checking the history, but the anonymous IP that edited Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line), adding the closing date from last year did add a source in a previous edit, but it was with a source with a broken link. Do you have any way of finding a version of the link he/she used that isn't broken? ----DanTD (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not Acps110...

1. It wasn't a broken link, it was only "ref" with "name": <ref name="nyt-2011-04-28"/>. There is no reference named "nyt-2011-04-28" either in this article or in any other one. The IP user seems to have copied the syntax from another article and changed the date. He didn't know he had to add a URL.
2. I've found a source that really says that the station closed on the mentioned date: [1]. However, the MTA map (updated as of October 2011, later than April 2011) shows the station as active: [2]. I guess that nycsubway has copied the date from some other source that meant the station was closing until the next racing season.

Vcohen (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As Vcohen said, the October 2011 map still had the station active, and the January 2012 map also shows the station active. I haven't seen any other source that says the station has closed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bus connections on The 7

So we only have bus connection on trains when they're airport connections and Select Bus Service, eh? My mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, only special buses like that in the service articles. Ordinary buses are only mentioned in the station articles. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dark gray

Do you mean this statement is anything more than a comment to this specific template? Vcohen (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add that several other places too. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Station Success Conversions

I see you changed the station succession boxes in some of the stations on the BMT Jamaica Line and BMT Myrtle Avenue Line to remove the confusing north/south problems. Do you plan on doing this for every other station article we have? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because north and south adequately describe the rest of the system. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Levels near 63rd Street

Is this correct? If both tracks go to the upper level of the tunnel, the line becomes one-level, doesn't it? The track map shows the tracks on the same level.

I don't want to edit the article before I ask you. Vcohen (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to say there, is that heading east from Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street, the two levels become two side-by-side tracks of the IND 63rd Street Line on the upper level of the two-level four-track 63rd Street Tunnel. I've re-worked it some more. Thanks for the heads-up. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Vcohen (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Apologies...

Thank you for the comments...I am venturing into new horizons for the first time and following the suggested path...No doubt there is a learning curve to all that we do...I guess there are bumps along the way as we learn.

"Oh what a tangled "web" we have woven...

Take Care 68.148.74.6 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your apology. Here is a great tutorial for you, about the basics of Wikipedia. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

iBook / edited text

You edited my text concerning the reliability of the Clamshell iBook compared to follow up iBook and PowerBook computers. (remove fluff not supported by rev) The reference article (macintouch report, More than 10,000 laptops were logged, along with many thousands of comments.) stated: "The single most reliable Apple laptop in our survey is the original Blueberry, Tangerine and Graphite series iBook, with a low 8-11% repair percentage." I just replicated this statement. Please read carefully before editing....Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldohreule (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You left out the very important "in our survey." Regardless, it's not WP:NPOV to say "the single most reliable Apple laptop." There have been a lot of Mac laptops, and that ref doesn't support the Clamshell iBook being the most reliable of the entire lineup. The report only includes a small subset of Mac laptops. That's why I changed it to more neutral language. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To be precise: I wrote "Compared to follow-up iBook and PowerBook notebook computers, the Clamshell iBook proved to be the single most reliable Apple laptop." The macintouch report dealt not with a small subset, but 41 Apple notebook models sold over seven and a half years and was the most comprehensive report at that time. We know that in 2006 when the macintouch report was published the new Intel MacBook and MacBook Pro models came out - and the iBook and PowerBook line ended. I didn't compare the Clamshell reliability to MacBook and MacBook pro. It seems that you wish to gloss over the facts.Waldohreule (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Episode references

It is pretty much a common practice that a reference can be removed for an episode after the episode has aired. WP:VERIFIABILITY does need to apply in this case, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does. If you want to challenge this practice of removing references, bring it up in Template talk:Episode list. QuasyBoy 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:VERIFIABILITY. As a core policy of Wikipedia, it states that everything on Wikipedia needs to be written about somewhere else first. What is written here can be verified from the source material. By removing a source, you are allowing the individual episodes to become unsourced. Wikipedia allows any unsourced information to be removed at anytime. However, there is never any reason to remove properly sourced information. Even if the source goes dead, it still shouldn't be removed unless a new source replaces it.

I am not challenging the fact that those episodes are wrong, I am challenging the fact that they are properly sourced and you are making them unsourced. Also, I'm not asking if the sky is blue; Everybody knows that. I'm asking about something specific. Therefore, it needs proper sourcing.

On last thing, by removing a source, you are not improving the encyclopedia. You are effectively undoing your earlier work. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said if you feel that way about verifiability at all costs concerning episode titles, start a discussion on it on Template talk:Episode list. I am just doing what has been down for on Wikipedia concerning episode lists for a while now. The information is not being pulled from thin air concerning the episode titles, I pay close attention to the article as it is to know what is accurate information. You seem to only be paying attention to the latter episodes concerning the references, reference all the episodes then, not just the latter ones if that is the case. There is such a thing as over-citing, See: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Over-citing. QuasyBoy 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I saw your comment on User Talk:HJ Mitchell's page. If you want my opinion, QuasyBoy is right. An episode that has aired, doesn't need a source as it is at that time obvious what the episode is about and what information can be obtained from it.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The whole thing is unsourced. Why? All I see are sources to the viewership. Can you source the rest of the article? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, any non-obvious information would need a source. Since aired episodes are considered obvious information, a source isn't really needed. Anything new would generally need one though.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious to who? How can I verify it? There are no sources for the episodes at all, only to the viewership. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To anybody that follows the show. Anything that has aired can be considered an obvious source because it's probably what people go to as their first source. To source an aired episode is like sourcing the fact the Sky is blue. Anybody can look up and see for themselves that it is blue and doesn't need to be referenced. It's the same with aired episodes.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source for anything. I don't know why you would even think of using it like that. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on Acps110's other edits, he/she is not familiar with other episode lists on this site. In many other episode lists a reference is not forever attached to the episode title. Acps110 can't seem to understand that. One again citing every episode means Over-citing. QuasyBoy 06:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Station structure

Hi. Concurrently with our discussions on station layouts and on infobox programming, I would like to ask you about station structures. It's the same question that I tried to ask here and here.

All underground stations have their Structure parameter in infoboxes filled in with one value: Underground. This solution isn't correct, because the word underground only means that a station is below the ground. These stations have different structures, and I want to reflect this fact.

In Russia, where I lived, it's common to classify underground stations approximately this way:

• 
  Single-vault station
• 
  Shallow column station
• 
  Deep column station
• 
  Pylon station

I see some on these types in the NYCS too:

• 
  Single-vault station
• 
  Shallow column station

However, I couldn't find the full list of NYCS stations along with their types. Could you provide me with it? Vcohen (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No such list of station types exists. Most are shallow column stations, with fewer deep column stations, and fewest single-vault stations. I can't think of any pylon stations. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you say. Anyway, how can I find out which stations are (structurally) deep? Vcohen (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition, could you help me here? Vcohen (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you can find out which are structurally deep other than visiting each one. Of course, that would be WP:OR which we can't use. Off the top of my head, those that are structurally deep are near river crossings as well as in upper Manhattan on the west side. Those come to mind, and surely there are some New York Times articles about those stations being built. The stations that are currently under construction would be the easiest to source, and they are all similar designs. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

When we say that station X has N tracks and M platforms (and don't refer to any source), it isn't considered WP:OR. I hope there exist obvious signs that allow us to say that station X belongs to type Y. I have only two problems.

My first problem is that the classification used in the USA may differ from the one I've described. For instance, this is a deep station, no doubt, as it has a rounded ceiling. However, this is a station below it, and it must be deep too, but it has no any sign of a deep station that I know.

My second problem is that I cannot come from Israel and visit each station. Vcohen (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have the same problem of not being in NYC.

About your question on the Lexington Avenue / 59th Street complex... There is a cut-away drawing somewhere (that I will try to find) that shows the structure from street level down. The Lex local is a standard Dual Contracts shallow column station and the BMT station is a deep column station. The Lex express level was built in the 1950s around the existing express tracks, so that would make it a deep column station. It is at a lower level from the BMT station. So the drawing shows the Lex local closest to the surface, then the BMT station at a right angle to that at a lower level, and finally the Lex express deeper still. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, but this lower level has neither rounded ceiling nor rounded walls. This is the ceiling above the tracks, it's flat too. Maybe there are some structural features that cause the station not to collapse, but I totally cannot classify it. Have you any solution? Vcohen (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion over at WT:NYCPT has gone stale, I've been bold and added the switch to Infobox NYCS for structure type. I've checked and fixed all of the above-ground stations too. My suggestion of a solution for you is to use the WP:BRD process. Make a bold edit and see if someone reverts.

For 59th Street lower level, I would classify it as a deep column station because of the simple fact that it is not close to the surface. Additionally, it was built under an existing station. I think the reason that any column station doesn't collapse (deep or shallow) is the sheer number of columns, and their close spacing that distributes the weight above. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. As of now, I still have no data to proceed with. IMHO, if we want to find somebody that knows the answer we have to ask explicitly. I will ask this question on the project talk page. The WP:BRD process won't yield the desired result. Somebody will revert my changes as unsourced, and he will be right.

What for 59th street, I see two alternatives, and I want to know which of them is correct. The first one is that this station has something that we don't see in the photos. Before the lower level was built, the tracks were in a tunnel. When they were building the level, they could use a part of the tunnel construction. For example, the flat ceiling that we have seen may be a false ceiling hiding the real rounded ceiling of the tunnel. In this case the structure of the lower level is "deep column". The second alternative is that both levels have the same structure that works at any depth. In this case my "Russian" classification is not suitable here and we have to find another classification that does reflect the reality. Vcohen (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some recent edits I'd like to question

For the station articles on the IRT White Plains Road Line, I noticed you changed the lead paragraph saying what train serves the station and when from "the 5 at all times except late nights and rush hours in the peak direction" to "the 5 daily except rush hours in the peak direction." You forgot to put "late nights" between "except" and "rush hours" in that sentence because the 5 does not serve those stations during late night hours unless of course late nights is not included in your use of the word "daily." If that is the case, however, you have to change that on all other station articles that have a certain service serving them at all times except late nights (i.e. on the C, R, and 3 trains). I know subway service is low and not used a lot during late night hours, it is no different than any other time of the day.

Also, I noticed you edited the templates related to the M train running on the IND Queens Boulevard Line from "weekdays at all hours except late nights" to "weekdays until 11 p.m." Maybe we should change that to "weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." because if a certain train stops serving a station at a certain time of the day, there has to be a certain time when it starts serving it daily. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget to explicitly exclude late nights, because daily already excludes late nights. The day according to the MTA lasts from approximately 6 AM (at the beginning of the morning rush) until midnight. Weekend days begin later (8 AM on Sat, 9-10 AM on Sun) but for the purpose of this discussion, weekend days are just like any other day. I added "at all times" to the Flushing south template because weekdays doesn't include late nights either.

"All times" vs. "daily" vs. "weekdays"

Since the subway runs 24 hrs a day, most of the service wording is biased in that direction. The structure of the services shows a decreasing amount of service from that... an all times except late night service runs every day from 6 AM to midnight. Weekdays would be even less service... Mon to Fri, 6 AM to midnight. The point I'm stressing is that neither daily or weekdays includes midnight to 6 AM.

5 trains have the most number of structured degradations of service in the system. Rush hours and mid-days it runs the full length. The rest of the day it short turns at Bowling Green. Late nights, its route is further shortened to a shuttle in the Bronx. Or looked at another way, after the PM rush hour it is demoted from Flatbush Ave back to Bowling Green, and can't get to Brooklyn. After midnight it is demoted again, this time from Bowling Green back to East 180th St and can't even get out of the Bronx. So "daily except rush hours in the peak direction," means only that, and expands to "daily (Monday to Sunday) from 6 AM to midnight you can expect a 5 train to stop, except if it is a Monday to Friday rush hour, inbound in the AM or outbound in the PM."

I replaced "all times" with "daily" because there were too many exceptions for "all times" to really mean all times. If a service doesn't run late nights, it seems strange to me to say it runs all times, unless that is the only exclusion. I am fine with "all times except late nights," because that is the same thing as "daily from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." or "daily until 11 p.m."

I shortened the wording for the M train (and other templates) because there is a limited amount of horizontal space in the infoboxes. I just took the same wording from B service to keep things from strangely wrapping to the next line.

(As an aside, I wish NYCS would do away with weekend service and run mid-day service from 8 AM to 11 PM on weekends instead. That would simplify things a lot. 5 to Flatbush Ave, B to 145th Street, M to Forest Hills and Q to Astoria.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

LIRR West Brighton Beach and Culver Line

If the Culver Line was never the West Brighton Beach Division of the Long Island Rail Road, then what's this? ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the Culver Line (surface) route. According to that article, the LIRR stopped using the Culver line after 1899. The elevated line didn't open until 20 years later in 1919. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I just fixed it. I wish somebody had replied to my question about it on the WP:NYPT talk page. ----DanTD (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw your question on WT:NYCPT, but I didn't respond to it because I thought you had already figured it out. Sorry about that. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

En dashes

I reverted your reversion of the move of Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). I hadn't totally sorted out the MOS vote on this from last summer, but it appears that it was decided that a space was no longer necessary around an en dash between elements that had spaces themselves, unless those spaced elements were the ends of a range (i.e., dates). You'll see that the current language at MOS:ENDASH reflects this.

Your move-log message referred to the NYCPT' project's naming convention. This says nothing about spacing and cannot trump policy (i.e., the MOS, to which it even refers) without a specific, explicit exception in policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple A5x

Hi, I saw you made a redirect from Apple A5X to Apple A5. I think that Apple A5x (lowercase x) should also be a redirect to Apple A5, what do you think? --KDesk (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually working on that right now. Moving sources over... Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3

Thanks for that; I was unawares. 98.82.0.90 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being complained about

Just a courtesy note that the IP editor who was commenting here has now taken the "issue" to Tide rolls user page. QU ^TalkQu 21:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Cross-platform interchange and overpass

Excuse me and hello.

If a station provides cross-platform interchange, it allows cross-platform transfer between all trains running in the same direction (southbound to southbound etc.). At the Prospect Park station only the northbound B and Q allow cross-platform transfer to or from the S, while the southbound B and Q don't, because the S stops at the northbound platform only.

• 
  Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)
• 
  Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets (New York City Subway)
• 
  Jay Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway)
• 
  Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway)
• 
  Prospect Park (BMT Brighton Line)

Vcohen (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prospect Park is no different from any other cross-platform interchange in the system. An overpass is implied. There are many "wrong-way" transfers made every day. For example, a passenger boarding a Manhattan-bound C train on the Fulton Street line and transferring to a Queens-bound G train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts towards Long Island City. Or, someone boarding a downtown B train on Central Park West and transferring to a Queens-bound E train at 7th Ave. There must be some of that at Queensboro Plaza, with inbound riders on one line transferring to the outbound side of the other line. Wrong way transfers are also used all the time when all trains in one direction are running express. To get to the right station you have to go past it to the next express stop and transfer to a local going the other way.

I understand what you are saying about a transfer from a southbound S to a southbound B or Q requiring a crossover via the mezzanine. The are many other places where that happens throughout the system. Another example would be a weekend southbound J rider transferring to a Brooklyn-bound 4 to continue southbound. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No doubt, all these examples do exist. However, they are not called cross-platform interchange. Each station with cross-platform interchange (see the first 4 layouts above) strictly has two directions and two platforms that a passenger can cross to take a train in the same direction (within the station the direction is the same, after exiting the station trains take different routes). Prospect Park has only one. Vcohen (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's simplify the problem. Each one of the other 4 stations has two platforms that a passenger can cross to change the train. Prospect Park has only one, for northbound trips only. That's what I want to say. Vcohen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Prospect Park has four tracks in service and two island platforms, just like most of the express stations throughout the system. The southbound local track is seldom used, but it is still there and in service just like the other three tracks. Both platforms offer a cross-platform interchange. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember that. I'll try to explain myself.

The article about the station says, "The Franklin Avenue Shuttle terminates on the northbound local track while the southbound one is not normally used in revenue service." Also the infobox says, "Tracks: 4 (3 in regular service)." These two pieces of information are coordinated with each other (although they don't fully match reality).

What you are saying now belongs to another model of reality and contradicts the previous one. Things written in an encyclopedia have to be all coordinated, don't they? Vcohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't contradict the definition of a cross-platform interchange. Regardless of normal usage, the track configuration still allows cross-platform interchanges. Examples of other stations like this are not limited to... 62nd Street (BMT West End Line) and Pelham Parkway (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Neither line has normal express service, but track and platform configuration still allows for cross-platform interchange, when trains are re-routed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes! OK. Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix numbering

Thanks--I wonder if I'll ever learn. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. A most unusual RfA; quite interesting to watch it unfold. I know you'll do just fine with learning how to be an admin. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

IP

I wouldn't be surprised if he returned, he has always had a grudge against you and against me. One thing it would prove though is that he hasn't changed a single bit. Maybe just a bit more grammar used now.--iGeMiNix 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(IG, I noticed that your talk page says you're retired, so I hope you see this here.) I blocked the IP because it's obvious to me that it's the same person as is behind 24..173 and NYCSlover. If either of you happens to see another IP or new account editing similarly, be sure to drop me a note and I'll take care of it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another IP

There's another IP who has been editing a lot of Montauk Branch and Babylon Branch related articles. You reverted a sentence about one of the trains which you claimed was unsourced. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this was the source he or she was relying on for the info. ----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a timetable though, regardless if it was correct or not, sourced or unsourced, it is trival information at best. If that was added, you might as well go add about how there are rush hour N and Q trains terminating at Times Square and 57th then.--iGeMiNix 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. But the issue in this case is the source. I'm not suggesting that the IP was right about adding it to the article. ----DanTD (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the inserting editor to support their claims by citing sources. Also, they were writing in CamelCase without proper punctuation. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, I agree with IGeMiNix too. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fulton Street Transit Center + World Trade Center Transportation Hub

Excuse me, I'm here with a new set of questions.

1. The Fulton Street (New York City Subway) complex:

• ​ Fulton Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line)
• ​ Fulton Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)
• ​ Fulton Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
• ​ Fulton Street (BMT Nassau Street Line)

2. The Chambers Street – World Trade Center / Park Place (New York City Subway) complex:

• World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
• ​ Chambers Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
• ​ Park Place (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line)

3. One single station:

• ​​ Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line)

Question 1. Which stations are included in the World Trade Center Transportation Hub? There is no article dedicated to it. I guess that the answer is 2+3.

Question 2. Which stations are included in the Fulton Street Transit Center? I guess that the answer is 1+2+3, but the "+" between the 1 and 2 is out-of-system. Vcohen (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The World Trade Center Transportation Hub doesn't exist yet. When it is completed, it will include Chambers Street – World Trade Center (A, ​C, and ​E trains); Park Place (2 and ​3 trains); World Trade Center (PATH station) (NWK – WTC, HOB – WTC trains); Cortlandt Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) (1 train) and Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line) (N, ​R, and ​W trains). The WTC transportation hub article currently redirects to the PATH station's article.
2. The Fulton Street Transit Center includes all of the existing Fulton Street stations, but does NOT include Seaport (IND Second Avenue Line) at the corner of Fulton and Water Streets.

The Dey Street Passageway is the connector between the two otherwise unconnected complexes. It is unclear if transfers between subway stations at the WTC hub will be free or outside of fare control. They could be free AND outside of fare control, by requiring people to swipe their MetroCards to get out of one station (encoding a limited transfer, good only for 10 minutes and only at turnstiles of the other stations in the complex), and then swipe back in at the next. I hope that the MTA will attempt some form of renaming to unify the stations there.

Here's an animation of what it might look like to enter at Fulton Street and Broadway, go through the Dey Street Passageway into the WTC hub and continue across towards the World Financial Center on the other side of West Street (from the Port Authority's website). Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One additional thing to point out... The Fulton Street Transit Center upgrade is an MTA project, the WTC hub is a Port Authority project. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I have to add:

4. One single station:

• Cortlandt Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line)

Now, if I understand correctly:

• The WTC hub is 2+3+4, and your "unclear" refers to it.
• The Fulton Street Center will only include the existing complex 1.
• The Dey Street Passageway will be between 1 and 2 and certainly out-of-system.

Am I right? Vcohen (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost right. WTC hub is 2+3+4 + World Trade Center (PATH station). The rest you have right. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I factor out the PATH stations, because I only deal with the subway.

Now I think I have a list of things that we should fix.

• Fulton Street Transit Center. The description of stations is wrong (erroneously includes stations other than Fulton Street). The service list in the infobox is wrong too (erroneously includes the E, N and R trains).
• Template:NYCS Fulton Street Transit Center. The template is wrong (erroneously includes the E, N and R trains) and redundant (after correction it will be equivalent to Template:NYCS Fulton-Broadway).
• World Trade Center (PATH station)#New York City Subway connections. The list of subway stations doesn't clearly show which stations are already connected and which stations will be connected when the new passageway/s is/are built.
• List of New York City Subway transfer stations#Lower Manhattan (14th Street and below). A description is missing for the new transfer that will connect the Chambers Street – World Trade Center / Park Place (New York City Subway) complex to the two Cortlandt Street stations.

Am I right this time? Vcohen (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even the MTA seems to be confused about their own system. This page on the MTA's website shows the E, N and R trains listed on it which can't be right if the Dey Street Passageway is out of system. This NY Times animation from 2008 shows the Dey Street Passageway as in-system, and a ramp from the southbound Cortlandt Street (BMT) platform to the World Trade Center (E) platform. I haven't seen any evidence of that ramp being built. I think we should probably leave things as they are until the Dey Street Passageway opens in November. Once the official map is updated (depicting the Dey Street Passageway), we will have a primary source that shows what is and isn't part of the Fulton Street Transit Center.

As to the connections at WTC (PATH station), WP is not a travel guide. It only shows what NYCS services are available there currently. There is no reason to show how things connect, especially since it will probably change many times before construction is complete. We still don't have a re-opening date for the Cortlandt St (IRT) station, so it's still premature to include that station. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you.

By the way, the MTA's presentation is anyway wrong, since the E at WTC is connected to the A and C at Chambers St and to the 2 and 3 at Park Pl, so it's impossible that the WTC station is included in a complex and Chambers St + Park Pl are not. They seem to have omitted them because these trains are already included at Fulton St, it's correct concerning trains, but it isn't correct concerning stations. Vcohen (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Aspc, please visit WP:ANI when you have a moment, section "Jimbo1qaz"--I have a question for you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Who serves whom?

Excuse me, one question more. In this article there are two sentences:

1. Grand Central – 42nd Street is a major station complex... It serves trains...
2. The complex is served by... trains...

Does a station serve trains? Do trains serve a station? Is it OK that two such sentences appear almost side-by-side? Vcohen (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:IPad (3rd generation)

Hi, I'm wondering why you chose to remove/revert several of my recent edits. I am a new editor here so I would like to understand your reasoning for this. (If possible, if you could show me some relevant policy). Thanks. YumOooze (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Was it because you thought that I was removing arguments written by others? The arguments I was altering were completely written by me. I fully understand if this was the case though. YumOooze (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)