Jump to content

Talk:MBTA subway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tylr00 (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 23 September 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki neologism

This uses as its title a name which is neither official nor colloquial, and claims that the "official name" is a near-literal nonce phrase. It also implies that the RT operations, which are overwhelmingly surface, are subway. Anmccaff (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA Subway is an acceptable name for the article (though MBTA Rapid Transit or MBTA rapid transit is probably better); all three of those are defensible from MBTA documentation including the Bluebook. Anything with 'Boston' is definitely not a correct name - 29 miles of the current system is in Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Quincy, Braintree, Revere, Medford, and Malden; next year will add 1.5 miles in Chelsea, and the GLX 4 more miles in Somerville and Medford - and nowhere is that used anywhere in official sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the time it was still saying The Boston Subway (commonly referred to as "the T" and officially Massachusetts Bay Rapid Transit), which was wrong on so many levels it is hard to keep track. There's a slight disconnect, even now,between "MBTA subway", which is used in some T pubs for all RT operations, and "MBTA rapid transit", which a little more accurate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use either, or both, MBTA Subway or MBTA Rapid Transit, but they are both referenced in the Bluebook, and that's probably the best source for a definition. I don't think "The Rapid Transit" is specific enough to this system and is quite ambiguous. Also, I agree that "The T" is vague and colloquial, but we could also mention that the system is sometimes referred to as "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "MBTA Subway" nor "MBTA Rapid Transit" appear more than once in the Bluebook, and rarely in other sources. Neither is a definitive official title; your edits to the lede are misleading and in some cases flat-out wrong. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following this argument, perhaps the name of this article is misleading. In which case, we would go with "The unnamed heavy rail, light rail, and bus transit services in the Boston metropolitan area operated by the MBTA". Basically, I'm just trying to say that MBTA Subway is not misleading or incorrect, and would provide for a logical lead paragraph. On the MBTA website it is referred to as "the Subway" or "Subway", which would be too ambiguous for an article title on Wikipedia, so we use MBTA Subway. Tylr00 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership, this system is named both MBTA Subway and The T. See also the section below titled "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not a complete absolutist about wiki being unusable as a reference, but this seems to be an excellent example of why it can be. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it doesn't provide you with confirmation bias? The basis of my argument is that I believe the system does have a name, and has a colloquial name Tylr00 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass over the try at mind-reading. Look at that article, it defines the "MBTA Subway ("The T") as the (Blue, Orange, and Red Lines, while linking to an article about the MBTA as a whole, which describes the whole system as "the T". Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument tries to say that a name can only have one meaning, but whose meaning has not been clearly defined by even the MBTA. Certainly, "The T" can refer to the system as a whole, but "the T" also does refer to the subway system, colloquially. See Metonymy on how we use terms such as Beacon Hill to mean the state government of Massachusetts or to refer to the historic neighborhood in Boston. The only entities defined legally at play here are "Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" and "MassDOT". Otherwise, we're looking at a nickname not even clearly defined by MBTA . Tylr00 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really do need to get the Mind-reading device calibrated. This argument..or, at least my argument, is that a name used for any encyclopedia entry should be as precise, official, and unambiguous as possible -figures of speech are not welcome here; that Wiki has a real prejudice about capitalization, reserving it only for particular proper phrases, and therefor, in Wikish, "MBTA Subway" has different implications from "MBTA subway"; and that Wiki as a matter of policy frowns on circular citations. Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo - that capitalization subtlety is very important. It's very easy to invent capitalized phrases that look official but in fact are anything but. As for the other argument: the use of "the T" was created by the state government in 1964 as an intentional measure to differentiate the entire new agency from the MTA. It was a deliberate attempt to apply a common branding to the entire transportation system (including the commuter rail routes (which the MBTA was specifically founded to subsidize) and the suburban bus routes). Referring to just the rapid transit system as "the T" has always been a habit of lazy newspaper writers and uninformed suburbanites (including, unfortunately, the occasional MBTA employee); Wikipedia is not the place to make incorrect colloquialisms sound correct. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that as a Bostonian who lives in Boston and rides the T daily, that the subway system is very infrequently referred to as "Rapid transit" or "the subway" by locals. Forget pinpointing this to lazy newspapers or suburbanites, but a Bostonian calls this subway system "the T". When they say "the T" they do not refer to buses, they do not refer to the commuter rail, nor do they refer to the state agency. Yes, as I've stated earlier, the circle T and using "the T" is also a moniker for the entire agency, but, for better or worse, it is also the most accurate name for the subway. You will all have to get over the fact that this is unofficial because in plenty of instances (to create a clear, well-informed Wiki) an article will include in the first sentence the official name along with the colloquial (or actual) name. Tylr00 ([[User

talk:Tylr00|talk]]) 16:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think you are not talking (metaphorically, of course) to other Bostonians? Anmccaff (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is, but it is also the vernacular in Boston and worth noting. Pick up any tourists' guidebook and it will tell them to travel around town via "Boston's subway - the T". I agree that the article should follow a factual basis for referring to its subject, and to write "MBTA Rapid Transit (commonly referred to as "the T")" would not be an unacceptable way to begin the article.Tylr00 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an entirely unacceptable opening, with two incorrect neologisms. Quit pushing your rubbish. It is not wanted here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we are on the talk page, I will push on indefinitely. From my perspective, Anmccaff and Pi.1415926535 are attempting to negate my argument by simply saying "That would not be acceptable" without further backup. This is because I am using an argument that has been defended across Wikipedia. Using the official printed name along with the colloquialism (which I have proven to you through word of mouth, print media (lazy journalists or not), tourists guidebooks, and even the MBTA's [1], which titles the webpage for the subway as "MBTA Subway 'The T'", giving evidence to BOTH of my arguments for the official name and the vernacular). Basically, it is simple wrong to exclude 'The T' from the webpage given is strong historic correlation. Please tell me how any of these facts are not relevant to this page and notable in the subject's name Tylr00 (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There are no contemporaneous cites for this explanation of the color scheme.

The folklore explaining the color scheme is now widespread, but there is no early indication of it, and there should be, if it were real. There is also some direct contravention of it; Cambridge7 explicitly noted that they preferred to start with the primary colors, and only switched away from yellow to orange when it proved unworkable in signage. Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the section to note that the explanations didn't appear at the time; I think that's a reasonable compromise between the mismatch between older and newer sources. If you're able to find any source for history of the paint schemes (I can probably dig up a source for the impetus of the 'Grey Ghost' paint, but I'm not sure about the later repainting), or an explanation of why the bus rollsigns were never recolored, I'd be much obliged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere I've got some early stuff from Cambridge7. Dunno where exactly, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Line not "underground" in the usual sense

The only extensive underground section is actually underwater; this isn't the usual usage of "subway." Anmccaff (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The portion referred to in the article is actually the tunnel from South Station to Silver Line Way, not the TWT (which I believe is what you're referring to). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...yupp, most of which is due to the Fort Point Channel, no? Anmccaff (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the FPC crossing is fairly short - only about 600 feet of the 4800-foot Transitway. The route on Google Maps is fairly accurate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SL1 and SL2 buses are underground for half their journey, with stations that are nearly identical to traditional underground subway stations. Courthouse (MBTA station) is one example of which Tylr00 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The immersed tube section alone -that is, the channel crossing proper- is 700 feet almost exactly, and the approaches, NATM on the west, C&C on the east, IMS, add a good deal more. The "world trade center" (Gawdalmighty, what pretentious crap summa these name are.) station's walls break grade; it has a conventional roof, clerestories, and everything; most of the enclosed volume is above ground, and the east end daylights. SL1 & 2 have only two stations below grade by choice. Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clarify that the Silver Line is not an underground subway, but the SL1/SL2 fare system operates as if it were part of the subway system (station transfers/fare rates), which may already be covered in the articleTylr00 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's part subway, yeah. But only part. Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key photo?

Why the change from the blue line to orange line picture? Does one portray the subway system better than the other? Tylr00 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Line photo is from an awkward angle and has poor contrast; it's not a great image to use as the lede. The Orange Line image has better contrast and is taken from a better angle. I'm not strongly attached to it if you have another image to suggest, but it's definitely much better than the Blue Line image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Blue line picture also only captures the equipment from the deck up. The ideal photo would, I think, be something like a perspective isometric of a train just leaving a platform, showing the forward truck from front and side. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the orange line photo, but wanted to open the discussion on characteristics for an ideal photo Tylr00 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

System map

What does everyone think about moving the unofficial system map into the infobox, as is done on New York City Subway. I think it looks clunky where it is now as it is right next to the colors table Tylr00 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error of computation, or difference of definition, or overlap?

The number of RT stations does not seem to jibe with the count in the Blue Book. Anmccaff (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recalculated and referenced Tylr00 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it was still wrong. There are only 60 subway stations, unless you count Park Street, for example, as two. Anmccaff (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The T"

I want to open up the discussion to adding a line to the lead paragraph where we say that the system is also commonly referred to as "the T". I find that in media, word of mouth, and even station signage that the informal but colloquial name "the T" refers to the subway. For example, T stations are typically subway stations, although the T sign is found on commuter rail stations those are infrequently referred to as "T stations". Moreover, the T emblem doesn't appear on bus stops, nor on this map published by the MBTA, which shows subway stations and lines denoted with circle Ts while bus stops with dots or numbers, further illustrating the "everyday" link between "the T" and the subway.

Additionally, when navigating around mbta.com, the pagenames go from "MBTA Official Website" on generic pages to "MBTA Subway 'The T'" when one clicks on a subway-specific page (See: [2]).

Obviously, this issue is contentious, as some may argue that "the T" and its logo refer to the system as a whole, but I do think it is worth nothing on this page that this system (the subway) is commonly referred to by name as "the T". Tylr00 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Two lines from the article Transportation_in_Boston:
  • "Today, Bostonians call their rapid transit network "the T","
  • "Boston has two discrete rail networks. One of these, the MBTA, widely nicknamed "the T", includes elements of light rail/streetcar operation as well as traditional subway technology."
Tylr00 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, note that it's definition of what the MBTA is is different from what this article uses...and, as an aside, quite likely wrong. Some aspects appear to be a result of imposing a view more consistent with a nationalized rail system. Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In gathering sources for citations, we never rely solely on the primary source, but on a collection of data that illustrates the reality of a situation. As such, it cannot be ignored that "the T" is a common nickname/colloquialism for this (as previously mentioned by others) nameless entity. Tylr00 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MBTA_subway&oldid=740810408"