Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation

What station is this?

Location questions have been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Unidentified locations.

Joe Korman's Website

It is now deleted, but some of the rolling stock articles like R32 (New York City Subway car), R46 (New York City Subway car), R62A (New York City Subway car) and R68A (New York City Subway car) still have links that formerly led to the official route assignment list and roster. Should we remove them? It is highly unlikely his website will return following his death and even if it does, the lists will be outdated as some models have been retired, new ones have taken their place, and route assignments change frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.230.20.116 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Merging the B67 and B69 pages

My fault for not doing this earlier, but I want to propose merging the B67 and B69 pages. They share around half of their route together, and have interlined frequencies and share a timetable with each other, and considering that other route groups that share this share a page, I was thinking the same could happen for the B67 and B69

Considering that the B67 and B69 are going to be serving both different north and south terminals by next year, you could merge them now, but for the sake of the history of both bus services, it would be best to keep them separated. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

<F> express

I personally have a problem with this whole <F> express thing. Unlike the respective <6> and <7> expresses, the <F> express is just simply two trains per day in the peak direction during rush hours. Can I please ask if it's possible to get approval for it to be removed entirely and instead just simply mention in the notes, history and lede section of the F train article? Please? Any thoughts? Just curious. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's more of an MTA question than a Wikipedia question. As reduced by comparison as it may be, it still has a separate diamond, physical signage, and rollsigns/LEDS consistent with the <5> and <6>. Cards84664 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheMasterofAllHitmans: That is a personal matter that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

LRG5784, your response sounds more dismissive than empathetic. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The <F> doesn't even have its own article, it's pretty much mentioned as you say in the F train article. But it is mentioned because it exists. Not even sure what you're asking to have removed. -- rellmerr ^{(talk page • contribs)} 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rellmerr, don't get snarky with me first of all. No duh it doesn't even have its own article, but like I said from the beginning, it's just simply two trains a day compared to the <6> and <7> expresses as well as the 5 express in the Bronx. It should only be a note in the F train article. That's all I was asking so save your snarky attitude for someone else. If you have nothing positive to say, then move along. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't snark, it was an actual question. You didn't make clear what you were asking for, it sounded like you were arguing that the <F> shouldn't have an article, and it doesn't. I literally said I'm not sure what you're asking to be removed. You made this note on the project talk page without context, so it needed clarification. That's it. I don't know what got you so upset, but don't take that out on me.

But this has been discussed already. It is mostly a note on the F article. If your argument is that we shouldn't include it as a route on the infoboxes, firstly you should state that explicitly.

Also, this is Wikipedia. Even had I meant what you assumed, this is a collaborative process. We're supposed to discuss even if we disagree, that's how we reach WP:CONSENSUS on a decision like the one you're (unclearly) asking people to make based on your personal feelings.

But if this were a !vote, I'd weakly oppose removing the <F>. Sure it's only four trips a day, but the Z has only 12 or so. What's the cutoff before we include/exclude? -- rellmerr ^{(talk page • contribs)} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Rellmerr Yes, my argument this entire time is that we should not include the <F> express on the info boxes because it's only two trains a day. Plain and simple. So please miss me with "my personal feelings". I do not see why was this so misunderstood or dismissed for. You guys need to think. Just only mention it briefly in the lede section and put a note in the station section of the F train article. The Jay Street–MetroTech, 7th Avenue and Church Avenue station articles can just simply say "the two center express tracks are used by two peak direction rush hour F trips" instead. Also, why are you comparing this to the Z? The J and Z skip-stop services are officially advertised in the official subway map, on platforms and on the MTA's official website and app. Whereas the <F> express hardly isn't, so you can't make that comparison. Is this clear enough for you guys or do you guys need another demonstration? Sheesh. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the <F> is featured on signage and timetables. Cards84664 16:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I second that and oppose as well. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that there is clear opposition to removing information about the <F> Express. This is an post-hoc mention, but I oppose removing said information as well. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Epicgenius, what about you? TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am going to refrain from formally voting on this. However, it looks like several users have already given you their feedback above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is still relevant, please also count me as opposed to removing that information, per Cards84664. Vcohen (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that what the OP is being bristled by here is that a lot of the articles have special case test/graphics for some instances where it will only be two trains a day - the <F> or the Q/N trains that share half their route during rush hour being obvious examples. I think the thinking is that, while true, it can be confusing to a new reader and might make the overall article a bit harder to quickly get information from. I don't have a solution for this but maybe someone else has some thoughts? Tduk (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

M86 Gracie Mansion trips

I was doing some research on the M86 bus route and there is no mention of the Gracie Mansion trippers that used to be part of the route. I was looking into old timetable from between 2007 and 2015 that showed the M86 deviating off it's normal route and continuing further to East End Avenue where it would end without any return trips, with return trips being factored in as time went on, either starting at York Avenue/86th Street or at East End Avenue. I could use past editions of the M86 timetable as sources in order to add the information in, which I obtained from the Internet Archive. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"bad" links

There are a lot of things that are used as references now, but contain a lot of poorly sourced information. I would like to remove many of them from the articles, but I don't want the information lost to time, as they are useful sources for some things. Are there any thoughts as to where might be a good place to put them? Thanks! Tduk (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tduk, in such cases, it might be helpful to put the information with a hidden comment. You could also put the info on the talk page, but relatively few people watch these. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)