Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


Is there any objection to applying MiszaBot here to automatically archive? --NE2 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. 10 or 14 days should be set for the archival. Only one question: should the next archive number be 5 or 1? Tinlinkin 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That next archive that I did now is #5. BWCNY 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I did the archive, that is really 1 big file to move. BWCNY 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1's mass revert of station moves

I recently moved a number of station articles to match the names on signs. Imdanumber1 just moved them back, claiming "As per naming conventions at WP:NYCPT, we are going with the previous title." Can someone point me to where it was decided to not use what's on signs, including adding words like on "Howard Beach–JFK Airport" rather than "Howard Beach–JFK"? I would think that what's used on signs that commuters see every day would fit use common names better than what the MTA chose to put on the map. --NE2 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one has responded, and Russbot was beginning to fix the double redirects he created, I moved them back. I suggest that we adopt the following:
Signs at ground level and on the station platforms should be used as the main source for the name of the station. Whichever one is longer, unless some of the text is significantly smaller (see Astoria Boulevard–Hoyt Avenue[1]), should be used as the article title. Other names, such as on the map, should be mentioned in the introduction to the article.
--NE2 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is accuracy. If you are gonna use a picture reference, some of the station's signs are out of date and MTA is so lazy to update signs. The accurate (up to date) reference is The New York City Subway Map. It has all the current station names. As user Pacific Coast Highway said Support Your idea works best.
BTW, please don't make too too many redirect links on the articles your work because you and Imdanumber1 are making a real big mess. - BWCNY 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The map doesn't have "all the current station names"; it has one of several alternate names, and often one that's not normally used. For instance, with 71st–Continental Avenues–Forest Hills, the map doesn't include the "Continental" part, but the MTA itself calls the station "71-Continental Avs". --NE2 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I was said earlier, the subway map has the accurate up to date station name because some streets have been renamed over many years. It's the MTA's fault not to update station name signs. Do what ever you want on the articles to make it as accurate as possible, but I would go for the map as up to date (current) day reference. BWCNY 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The map shows the old and new names for the streets on the Flushing Line (like 33rd Street–Rawson Street), so that doesn't seem true. --NE2 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Another counterexample is Briarwood–Van Wyck, which the map shows as Briarwood–Van Wyck Boulevard; the boulevard became the Van Wyck Expressway in 1952. --NE2 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::Support Your idea works best. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal

Before the merger, we agreed to use the schedules (or the stop listing). My idea is that we return to that. Whatever was listed in the schedules, would be used here. The reason I would like us to do so is because they tend to be more consistent. (the decision to use the map was a unilateral one, no one discussed this) In fact, this is just the tip of the iceberg of recent actions made without consensus within the project. I don't want to be a crybaby, but if this is going to work, we need to listen to each other, and respect everyone's concerns, not start edit wars and bully with policies. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see use common names. Signs are generally more consistent than the schedules: is it 57th Street or Midtown–57th Street? Is it Pacific Street or Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street? --NE2 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Signage might also be outdated. Slattery Plaza ceases to exist. Puritan Avenue, Gaston Avenue and Playland are gone too. And you forgot about Midtown-57th Street/Seventh Avenue, it's still in the R68 rollsign. The signage is consistent, but at the same time, may not be current. At least the line maps and scheduling are updated somewhat regularly. And if we were to use "common names", it would be something on a map, since it is more widely distrubuted than some bolted overhead sings in a station. At best, I would go with a compromise system. Most inclusive name wins. And stop the policy bullying. It's getting everyone nowhere, policy is meant to keep things going smoothly, not a weapon. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Slattery Plaza is not on new-style signs, only the tiles. Similarly, "Midtown" is not on the signs. The common name would be what daily commuters see in real life, not what tourists see on the map. --NE2 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about switching you link. Didn't mean to do that. Woodhaven Boulevard (aside from the stairs) does not have any new style signs. It's all tiled. And the tourist thnig is a poor excuse. You might as well apply that to scheduling, line maps and the station signs too. Tourists look at those as well. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the signs on the stairways? That's what someone will see when they enter the subway, not what's on the map. Signs in the station - including on the pillars - are what someone will see when riding the subway. --NE2 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about what someone sees. This is about what is published and what is official. Not about "I lived here for so and so and we called it blah blah blah". Maps and schedules are published and are updated in a somewhat timely fashion. Station signs are rarely updated in that fashion. Technically, we should be using theinformation on the maps/schedules, since it is attributed to a source, the MTA map/schedules. The signage relies on personal observations, or original research. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Signage is something the MTA creates and posts. By your argument, any discussions of naming conventions are original research, and that's not true. --NE2 03:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For a simple counterexample, note that the article is at United States, not United States of America. Was this original research, deciding that the former is more common? --NE2 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How do we know the MTA has an obligation to "update" station signs? The Van Wyck Boulevard station mosaic was largely undisturbed and "Briarwood" was just added to where the exit direction sign (whatever that's called) was previously. I remember Larry V previously mentioned there are no "official" station names. Therefore, next logical naming convention is to use the common name. Right now I can't tell if that can be derived from signage, The Map, online or published schedules, or even third party published articles. The MTA also does not use ordinal numbers for either The Map or signage. I will not take a position until I return to my computer later today, when I can read all arguments closely. Tinlinkin 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
They apparently do update the signs (not the tiles, which are kept for historical reasons, but the utilitarian black signs). My argument is basically that the common name is the one that you see as you're entering and riding the subway; a map is simply a representation of what exists in real life. --NE2 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the extra parts of the names of stations on the map is because they are terminals. Otherwise, the station name would just be the street or avenue. I believe these area names for terminals are fairly new, and not consistant with other statoin names. I would say just use the street, avenue, etc. bmitchelfTF 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal #2

Although I support using common names for article naming, I cannot surmise how a decision regarding a common name can be determined or justified. My strongest support for an article naming convention will be for the lowest common denominator (based on Bmitchelf's suggestion):

In addition to line disambiguators (e.g. BMT Culver Line):
  • For a station with a landmark only, use that name (e.g. Woodlawn, Parkchester)
    • Neighborhoods, landmarks and city squares may be included in the article names, provided they have been used to identify the station for most of the station's history
    • Stations identified with a neighborhood, landmark, or city square should be mentioned after the street name
  • For a regular terminal station (a station where most trains wihtin a service terminate), use present-day street names without neighborhoods if a neighborhood is part of the station name, mention the neighborhood first, followed by the street name
    • Include the neighborhood if it has been part of the station name for most of the station's history (I would say the following qualify: Coney Island-Stillwell, Flushing-Main Street, 71st-Forest Hills, Far Rockaway-Mott & Rockaway Park-B. 116th; maybe Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy. & Ditmars-Astoria)
  • For a non-terminal station or non-regular terminal station, use present-day street names.
  • Historical street names and streets that are no longer served by an exit (e.g. Myrtle-Willoughby, 85th-Forest Parkway) may or may not be included in the station name; I have no preference, but I am for inclusion when the historical name is proven to profess popular usage.

This is my proposal for a convention, which is perhaps a compromise between Pacific Coast Highway and NE2. Note that I did not address station complexes and shared stations, which still seem to be contentious. Tinlinkin 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this just pushes the arguments to the individual stations: is being on the map sufficient to "identify the station"? There are also issues with stations like Main Street–Flushing and Ditmars Boulevard–Astoria, where the map puts Flushing first as part of its standard of typically putting the community first, while signs put the street first. --NE2 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with your first part. If it is demonstrated within the history of a station that the community is commonly mentioned first, that should be used for the name. If the community is mentioned second, that should be used. I am now realizing this determination needs reliable sources, therefore, it would be harder to demonstrate which order is more popular in usage. (I believe Flushing Main Street is more common than Main Street Flushing and 71st-Continental Avenues-Forest Hills more than Forest Hills-71st-Continental Avenues, but then again, that's original research, hmm....) Tinlinkin 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll now say the neighborhood for a terminal station should be mentioned, and should be mentioned first. The MTA may want to emphasize neighborhoods for terminal stations for whatever reason (rollsigns, preference to easily identify terminals of a service by its neighborhood than the street, etc.), so I can say that is reasonable for a convention. This breaks conformity with street names first when identifying stations. The historical streets/removed exits issue is still unresolved.Tinlinkin 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That comment about rollsigns only seems to be true sometimes:
Without the community first: [2] [3] (one for Ditmars Boulevard–Astoria) [4]
With the community first: [5] [6] [7]
Is there a list somewhere of current rollsign and electronic display readings? --NE2 01:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are the side readings for Division A and B terminals:
* Current roll signs for R68/A: [8]
* Current (1980's) signs for R62A: [9]
* R40-42 rollsigns: [10]
* OUTDATED R44/46 electronic readings signs: [11]
***CAUTION: that link to the rollsigns is full of spam advertisement*** -- BWCNY 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names to deal with the thorny cases. --NE2 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean the comment about rollsigns to be an absolute generalization about station names. I meant that communities are indicated on rollsigns for a reason. Tinlinkin 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Related discussions

I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. --A bit iffy 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know how that is relevant here. The proposal there is about using "(railway station)", "railway station", "station", etc. as a disambiguator. In this WikiProject, the discussion is about what is the official name of a New York City Subway station, or barring that, how station names should be established. Tinlinkin 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the main proposal currently being discussed is about parentheses, but there have been long-running arguments such as on Talk:Birmingham New Street Station about what the "true" name of a station is, similar to the discussions here. --A bit iffy 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are past discussions in this WikiProject about the naming of New York City Subway station articles, including discussions about station complexes (I may have missed some):

I do not monitor all NYCS class articles, so discussions from those articles should be added here. Tinlinkin 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Subway station naming list page

I have listed all the stations for which there might be disagreement on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. Note that listing here does not mean that I or anyone else objects to using the name on the map or schedules. Please help fill in names from signs, schedules, and other official and third-party sources. Thank you. --NE2 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing a review of all "varieties" of station names. I think I could use Larry's category for this. It doesn't have to be all at once, but if the map's name and schedules' names conflict with each other, I'll post them on the article's talk page and hold a discussion. It's not feasible to use one blanket system for naming all 470+ stations. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read my comment above, I do not have all station articles in my watchlist. The discussion should be in a centralized area. The page created by NE2 seems to be a good place to start. Tinlinkin 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment of article

Someone tagged the Fung Wah Bus Transportation Inc. article in the talk page with a Start-class assessment and having a lack of references last month. The article has improved immensely since it was tagged, and now includes the necessary citations. How do I go about getting this article reassessed? —Umofomia 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced parameter (which you could have done yourself). I would leave it up to other editors if they want to change the rating, but to me it doesn't seem to be elaborated enough to be granted a B-rating. Tinlinkin 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I didn't know whether it had to be someone on the project that should remove the parameter. What are the criteria for the ratings? Currently, the link in the template,Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Assessment, does not point to an existing article. —Umofomia 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The assessment scale for articles is standard for articles of any subject matter on Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Quality scale (a parent of this project) to reference the grading scheme. There is a general explanation at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. However, we in our WikiProject should set up our own page about article assessment (which would likely be much the same as others at any rate). Tinlinkin 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on requested move.

Go to Talk:Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway)

There was a discussion on Talk:42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway) a while ago in which we determined that there is essentially no name for the "station complex" and that it is really two stations joined by a long passageway. Recently I split it, sparking a revert war with Imdanumber1, who claims there's no consensus. --NE2 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've went back and forth on the talk page for the past two months. I never saw a unanimous decision to split it. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need a big bold word stating what you wish to be done. We both shared what we knew about it, which indicated that it was clearly not one station with one name. --NE2 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Originally they were separate articles; I don't recall there ever being consensus to combine them. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
These stations do not have the same name, nor have the same location. The only commonality between the two is the long passageway transfer. So I also say they should be separate. Tinlinkin 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Parkway stations east of Utica Avenue.

Recently, NE2 (no surprise) moved all articles based on the Eastern Parkway Line east of Utica Avenue to IRT New Lots Line, e.g. New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line). This doesn't make sense, as I don't know any source that says these stations are a part of the New Lots Line. What is the proper line moniker? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#IRT Eastern Parkway Line. IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line cites sources. I in fact can find no sources for those stations being on the Eastern Parkway Line. --NE2 22:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Um...okay. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 23:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of problems here. Any of them could swing this one way or the other.
  • The only MTA literature I've seen that even mentions the line east of Utica says "New Lots".
  • There is no way to check emergency exit signs, since the line becomes elevated between Utica and Sutter Avenue.
  • The two segments are physically continuous, but the express Eastern Parkway tracks dead-end east of Utica, and only the local tracks continue to New Lots a la BMT Fourth Avenue south of 59th Street.
  • The two lines are continuously chained as IRT E (for Eastern Parkway?) from Borough Hall through New Lots.
Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line is accompanied with sources stating or classifying the New Lots Line (actually only the Sutter Avenue station with designation NLT). Apart from that evidence, I cannot make further judgments. Intuitively it makes sense to think of New Lots as a separate line because its alignment steers away from Eastern Parkway (the street) and it is elevated as opposed to underground. Imdanumber1 (or others) needs to show and prove how these stations are classified as Eastern Parkway Line stations. Tinlinkin 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for a naming convention?

The big question is: what is the criteria and the sources are we deciding on for coming up with a naming convention? Should we list proposed individual criteria and sources here and should we vote on which ones are the best ones to use? Tinlinkin 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List an individual criteria or source and then comment on the validity of each below each bullet.

Individual criteria

Based on the format <Station Name> (<Division Name> <Line Name>):

  1. Derive station name from names used on the MTA subway map
  2. Derive station name from station signs
  3. Derive station name from schedules (stop listing)
  4. Determine station name from an evaluation of popular usage (common names)
  5. Determine station name from a combination of the above
  6. Use (division line) as the disambiguator
    This is needed for disambiguation on those stations with just a street name (which is the majority), but it might not be necessary on stations with unique names (like Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall). --NE2 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Use (New York City Subway) as the disambiguator
  8. Do (or do not) add a disambiguator to unique station names
  9. Use ordinal numbers (or cardinal numbers) with numbered streets
    To be really picky about The Map and black & white signs, those use cardinal numbers, while we have used ordinal numbers. I would like to continue to use ordinal numbers as that is more natural when describing street names. Tinlinkin 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Spell out numbers from 1-10
    Again being rather picky. --NE2 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to consider all possibilities now rather than to revisit this again and again. Tinlinkin 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Individual sources

This section is for commenting on the issues and validity of the sources used in determining a station name, as opposed to the above section, which asks if the source should determine the station name.

  1. name as shown on The Map
  2. name as shown on schedules
  3. station signs
    Station names set in mosaic may relect historical names and not the name used today or common usage. Tinlinkin 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    On the other hand, station names on the standard white-on-black signs do get updated; the NYCTA removed "Rawson Street", "Lowery Street", and "Bliss Street" from station signs when they removed those old names from the map, and restored them when they restored the names to the map. --NE2 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. rollsigns
    Rollsigns are probably the most outdated source listed here. --NE2 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. other MTA sources
  6. third-party sources
Discussion about MTA "paper sources" (map and schedules) vs. station signs and newspaper usage
Harlem–148th Street (map/schedule name) is shown as 148th Street–Lenox Terminal on signs. The map name is little-used ([12] [13] [14] [15]). "Lenox Terminal" is also not used too much, but more than "Harlem" ([16] [17] [18]) - and even the MTA sometimes uses it ([19]). --NE2 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


  1. Station complexes
    No matter what name we use, we should bold the name for the station on each specific line in that section of the article. --NE2 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Terminal stations
    An illustrative case is Gravesend–86th Street. When the BMT Sea Beach Line was cut back on November 5, 2001, during Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue reconstruction, the "Gravesend" was added to the map (here's the May 2003 version). It's now gone from the map, since the Sea Beach Line was reopened to Coney Island on May 29, 2005. It's never been on signs (March 16, 2005 photo), and does not seem to have been in common use ([20] [21] [22]). (Does anyone know about rollsigns, which probably had to be specially patched for the closure?) But it's still on the line information and timetable. This shows that the timetable can be outdated. --NE2 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Don't forget the automated announcements too. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Street names with landmarks, historical street names and closed exits
  2. Other issues

Further discussion

I guess I finally have time to discuss the naming issue. So, I myself object to using station signage. I don't like the ideas of rollsigns because those are probably just as worse as station signage. So that would make me turn to a piece of information that is citable, verifiable and attributed to a reliable source and that is the MTA's published map/schedules. I prefer using these pieces of info because they are the most updated piece of MTA's information as service changes and station closures warrant. There are a lot of situations where one name is better than the other:

1. The map says Grand Army Plaza, the schedules for the 2, 3 and 4 includes Prospect Park as the suffix. I'd include it because the map is really tight on space on some areas.

2. The map says Woodside-61st Street, the 7 schedule says 61st Street-Woodside. I'd agree with the map because the Woodside is somewhat more important than 61st Street, as the neighborhood is more important than the street.

3. The map uses Dyckman Street, the A schedule uses Dyckman Street (200th Street). I'd use Dyckman Street only because they don't match the form of most other articles. In addition, the extra parentheses look awkward in the article titles.

4. The map uses High Street, A and C schedules uses High Street-Brooklyn Bridge. I'd go with High Street Brooklyn Bridge as per the same reasons of no. 1.

5. The map uses 23rd Street-Ely Avenue, so do the V schedules, but the E says 23rd Street (Ely Avenue). Although I'm against using dead street names, this case breaks the tie.

These are just a few cases, and there are many more that follow these in their footsteps. But what's important is that if we want to keep our information consistent and most accurate, such as accessibility, closings and name changes, then these are the places to go to. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, how can schedules be outdated if they are updated consistently? That makes no sense. Whatever we do, lets not try to make up our own convention for their names because that's original research. And like you said NE2, station signage and rollsigns cannot count as reliable sources because someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations.

However, I do have an idea:

For station naming, we should list what is more important to least in the title. What I mean by that is if one source lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, and another lists Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College, go with Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue because the building is probably more important than the street itself. Neighborhoods are more important than buildings/parks/landmarks, and streets are at the bottom of the chain. If possible, try to list streets in alpha-order, if the MTA's naming convention doesn't conflict. By that I mean if there is more than one choice. I'll tell you more when I have time. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think our reliable source and original research policies apply to choosing a common name, as long as we can show that that name is in fact used. Please explain why the schedules still show Gravesend–86th Street when that's no longer the terminal, and the "Gravesend" has been removed from the map. --NE2 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a question directed to the MTA's printers. Not to a user. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot of stations have neighborhood monikers in them and are not terminals. So? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And some of those neighborhoods are part of the name; this one does not appear to be. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to choose a source that includes that name, when it is certainly not part of the station's common name, you need to justify that choice, not push it onto the MTA. --NE2 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
But the MTA is the first place to turn to. And it has its published sources to prove it. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if one accepts that the only sources for determining the name are the MTA, since when does that mean that we can only use their schedules, and not other MTA sources like the map and signs? --NE2 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said that we couldn't use the map. But I I frown upon it on most cases because of space issues. There a lot of cases where the map has disadvantages. Grand Armp Plaza is one. I stated this earlier. And the 110th Street stations as well. Hoyt Street is another. And High Street. Signs are bad as well because they are the most outdated piece of literature. Like you said to GK tramrunner, someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations if someone picks station signage as the convention. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say signs are outdated? The ones on the Flushing Line were replaced twice when the old street names were removed station names and later restored. As for the verifiability, we're not saying "the signs say foo"; we're using them to choose a name. As long as another source uses this name, it's not a problem. This sort of thing is done all the time when choosing common names. --NE2 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Station signs do not count as a reliable source. A reliable source would be a piece of published information, like the map, timetables, etc. If they don't conflict with each other, then that's okay. Otherwise, not okay. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, we're not stating the fact that the signs say "Foo"; we're working "behind the scenes" to decide on an article name. --NE2 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be confusing reliable sources with first and secondary sources. Anything the MTA publishes (maps, timetables AND signs) are primary sources. Photographs of signs are secondary sources. Anybody can document a transit system's signage. Both first and secondary sources are acceptable reliable sources. Whether and how they contradict each other is another matter. Tinlinkin 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the decision for using en dashes (I think) based on again? WP:NC#Special characters states that those kinds of dashes should be avoided in article names; instead use simple hyphens. Tinlinkin 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry began moving articles to including en dashes because they were semantically correct. I don't know what he means by that, so we should ask him. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The hyphen is not the proper punctuation mark to use in this case, strictly speaking. But do what you'd like with the titles; I've become rather indifferent regarding the matter. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


If the naming convention discussion is becoming unclear and disjointed and drives potential interested users away, I agree. I'll take the heat for most of it because the format that I thought of didn't work out. I am also less willing to continue this discussion the way it is currently heading: a stalemate.

I see no less than five different opinions: myself, NE2, Imdanumber1, Pacific Coast Highway and BWCNY. My opinion can be swayed if I am persuaded by a strong argument, so I would rather support someone else's proposition than my own. And I have been disillusioned before by longstanding stalemates—particularly Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) with the discussion of United States major city naming conventions.

So how do we proceed towards a resolution? The one thing I think we can resolve is articles should not be moved without first discussing in this WikiProject. Tinlinkin 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do with {{NYCS time}}

Since {{NYCS}} is the new home for all of the service templates and {{NYCS time}}, I no longer find {{NYCS time}} necessary, and there is no chance that it would be updated in the future. I substituted {{NYCS time}} on the first 30+ line templates, but NE2 systematically reverted these changes, saying that List of New York City Subway services#Time periods might be moved to the future. I don't see this happening anytime soon. Does anyone else see this happening anytime soon?

I also added non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) in the line templates and bullets such as: • so as to separate the services and the time period details some may have and to keep the time period details in same line as the service it refers to, which he removed too. What should be done? Also, should the services be in bold in the service tables or not? I agree that the services shouldn't be in bold in the article body, except for cases where as in the 1 train article, if it refers to itself as it does, I guess it could be bolded. Thoughts? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Subst:NYCS time is a good example of what we use templates for: consistent formatting that may need to be changed. --NE2 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"There is no chance that it would be updated in the future." Why? Just because the template hasn't been changed since it was created? Nobody may have an idea how to change it now, but that doesn't mean it would continue to be the best format. And there is no guarantee that the time periods section would always remain where it is, although right now it seems to be in its best place. To answer the second part, self-references are normally not bolded. Tinlinkin 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest "edit war"

Which one looks better?

  • 5 


(1234) --NE2 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of station name sources done except for signs and third-party sources

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names now includes most information. I listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names all the stations that are not currently at the timetable names. Please do not move any of these to "fix" them; I will not move any in the other direction while this discussion is ongoing. Note in particular the ones in bold, which, as far as I can tell, have never been at the timetable names. Many of these appear to be "outdated" names like 104th–102nd Streets and Sutphin Boulevard–JFK Airport, while others like 61st Street–Woodside agree with signage but not the map. I think this refutes using the timetables as our sole source of naming. --NE2 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NYCT and MTA bus rosters, where are they?

As of today, the only page left of it is Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. But before, as I remember there were full rosters of each depot. Where are those rosters gone? please GK tramrunner 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No reliable attributable sources have been found for the information. --NE2 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No reliable attributable sources for what, for bus service numbers numbers?

As it always were for me, the street is the source. Just look what's written on buses. Especially in Brooklyn. ALl of them have Depot Badges. GK tramrunner 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's original research: someone in the future will not be able to go back and verify your observations. --NE2 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think I might be able to provide a completely reliable source for these numbers. If so, I'll get right to moving the depot articles back to their original locations. Cheers, alphachimp 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be great if you could. --NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Astoria Line extension to LaGuardia?

According to a 1996 New York Times article:

"There are also beginnings of turnoffs, like one at Ditmars Boulevard, at the end of the N line in Queens. A 1929 plan called for the N line to go to Bayside, meaning it would have gone to La Guardia Airport and beyond. The turnoff is the tiny first step in the journey never made."

I don't see any "turnoff" on aerial photos, and, from what I've read elsewhere, some of the other examples given are not quite correct:

"At Utica Avenue on the A line in Brooklyn, a bellmouth exists that might have gone all the way to Sheepshead Bay."

Actually the bellmouth is at Utica Avenue on the IRT; the IND station has an unused shell above it.

"And in Manhattan, the E and C lines have the beginnings of a link to a never-built line going across the island and over the Williamsburg Bridge into Brooklyn."

All the plans I've seen show this line using a tunnel south of the Williamsburg Bridge.

Has anyone heard of this provision at Ditmars Boulevard? --NE2 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#New York City Subway templates. --NE2 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Skip-stop in infoboxes

The way we list the J/Z skip-stop stations (between Myrtle Avenue and Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport) in infoboxes is inconsistent. At most stations, like 121st Street, only the next station in either direction is included. This results in a gap in coverage, since the infobox doesn't show which stop is next south on the Z. When I edited Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport, Broadway Junction, and Myrtle Avenue, I added a "skip-stop" row to cover this. On Broadway Junction, there is also an "express" row for the unused express tracks.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to best handle this? I see two separate issues:

  1. Should the "express" row be included? This actually only affects two stations - Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction.
  2. How should we deal with the skip-stop? Should the next station and the one after be included? Normally, with an express-local configuration, this would be done, but it looks awkward. Would a special line like (note: rush-hour peak direction Z trains skip to Foo) be better?

--NE2 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Subway Car Edits

User:NE2 has removed the information on what subway car each subway lines uses on the A, C, E, J, M, N, and Q pages. He claims the sources I'm adding is not acceptable (there were photos taken from We need to discuss this thoroughly and figure what is an acceptable source for a subway car. The Legendary Ranger 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:reliable sources; a photo that shows a car running on a line is not a reliable source that that type of car runs regularly on that line. --NE2 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing reliable sources with primary and secondary sources. A source, like an MTA page or newspaper article showing what cars run on which train route are primary sources, while a snapshot of a rollsign depicting what car the train route is on is a secondary source, both of which are allowed. Yes, I did read WP:RS. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the latter is only a source that a car of a certain type once had a certain rollsign reading. Rollsigns can be wrong; trains can be pushed into service on abnormal lines due to service disruptions. --NE2 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
While reroutes can happen, nothing says that pictures are disallowed. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, PCH, that was kind of the answer I was looking for. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what NE2 is claiming is just because a subway car shows some service, doesn't demonstrate the car regularly runs on that service. (I do not say that I support NE2's decision here.) And please do a better job of paraphrasing my earlier comment. I don't appreciate that kind of copying. Tinlinkin 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, sure. Sorry about the copy-pasting, I wasn't sure on any way to put it. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
All right. All I wanted was an acknowlegment about that. But another observation: the two situations are not the same. If you want to discuss station signage (in an article), a picture of a station sign proves it. If you want to discuss cars used in a subway service, since the NYCS uses various types of cars, and rollsigns can say anything, it does not follow that a picture of a car showing a service symbol means the service uses the car regularly. Do you understand what I am trying to say? (This is a problem of logic, which you may not be familiar with.) I observe that certain car types operate consistently on certain lines, and the information in the articles is likely correct. NE2 wants a source that can definitely prove such claims. Something in prose that explicitly states "the C service normally operates using the R32 and R38 car types." Otherwise making a claim like that may need to be substantiated, as NE2 feels it does. Tinlinkin 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Many of the rolling stock assignments for train routes may be incorrect to begin with. Unlike service changes, the MTA doesn't announce which cars run on which routes, so they may be incorrect to begin with. Many of the rolling stock articles cannot be verified. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is an example of a good source: "Kawasaki also built many of the newest New York City subway trains, including the R142A cars that run on the Lexington Avenue line and the R143 cars on the L line." For specifications, has scanned in pages from "Revenue and Non-Revenue Car Drawings", a NYCTA publication. --NE2 06:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line). --NE2 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons pages and categories

I have just finished adding all station photos on Commons to one of three pages: Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, Independent Subway System, and Interborough Rapid Transit Company. If you upload a photo to Commons, please place it on one of these, as well as in the appropriate subcategory of Category:New York City Subway stations. Thank you. --NE2 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/IND Eighth Avenue Line/archive1. Thank you. --NE2 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Borough Hall (4/5) on the Lexington of Eastern Parkway Line?

The MTA shows a project of "EPK Joralemon Tube-Nevins". I know we've discussed this before, and partially based on chaining, we decided that the 4/5 platform is on the Lexington Avenue Line. But according to [23], the chaining of E (Eastern Parkway) actually continues to the double crossover just west of Borough Hall. --NE2 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaining for Eastern Parkway begins just after the scissors crossover upon entering the station. I've seen it myself. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what the map shows. So the MTA's funding documents as well as chaining show the Borough Hall 4/5 platforms to be on the Eastern Parkway Line, while the exit signage shows it as part of the Lexington Avenue Line. Do you object to calling it part of the Eastern Parkway Line? --NE2 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, since sources by the TA can back up that the station is on Eastern Pkwy, so I would support it being called so. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject: buses

I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. --NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates vs. redirects

NE2, who rewrote articles within the scope, uses redirects in the article body ([[A (NYCS)]]) instead of templates ({{NYCS|A}}). I, for one, believe that this is unnecessary, and I object to the use of redirects in articles, especially if they are legitimately put there. My suggestion is that we revert back to using templates in the body for the text, as they are more consistent and can always be fixed if the articles undergo renaming in the future. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this on template talk:NYCS. There's no reason to use a template when a link will do. Your changes violate Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --NE2 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:RDR is a guideline, not a policy (guidelines can't be violated), and I have seen you changing redirect links into direct links yourself. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm working on is a brand new switch method for Template:NYCS. I plan to include all of the services links taken from the navigation box that weren't there before. It can be seen at User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox, my sandbox subpage. You can comment on it here, and I will then try to submit ideas I see fit for it as a final proposal and use AWB with my bot to replace them. It's not feasible to use redirects legitimately created for 100+ articles. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that template any better than the current one? --NE2 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it includes all service links (view it through its editing field), including current services, the shuttles, defunct services and unused services. The current syntax for Template:NYCS doesn't use all services, and it would be better to have all the services in a switch mode. Take a lookand see! --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not better to use the template; normal links are just fine. --NE2 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, using links (a.k.a. the wikisource) gets incredibly irritating within a short period of time, especially dealing with several dozen services for hundreds upon hundreds of articles within this scope. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's really not annoying. I've been doing it for a while and it's just as easy as using the template, and more "natural" since I'm used to using links for, well, links. --NE2 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still think it's a bad idea to use redirects in articles, especially if they are legitimately put in an articles, so I'm going to start to replace them and use the template instead, as it is a standard at the project to use them as an immense labor-saving device for all here, and users everywhere else. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you are not going to do that. --NE2 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that you cannot, do not and will not control me. Although I may have seen good behavior from you for the past week, you are being really uncivil again. Lets not try to go down this path again.
Besides, just because you have your preference in writing doesn't mean we should follow your preference. We at this project all decided to use the templates for articles, and we are going to follow the standard that we all decided to use that was built using consensus, not do what you want and be bossy. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you just call me a dick? Anyway, where's the consensus to use the template? --NE2 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we've been using them for a long time, right? Is that consensus for you? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, until recently, you've been using the ones like template:NYCS A. --NE2 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And then in December, we agreed into using the ParserFunction parameter template, {{NYCS service}}, until it was renamed a month later. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any real consensus there, only agreement that the new one is better than the old ones. --NE2 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, what really matters is not how many people agreed "back in the day" but whether there is any reason to use the template rather than a link. Your only argument has been your dislike of redirects. If this is because of "server load", I believe templates cause more, and editing the page to replace the redirect with a template certainly does. --NE2 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, that is what they picked, so the templates will be reinstated, for the reasons I've already given. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What reason? Redirects are bad? Sorry, but that's not a reason. --NE2 01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I give up man, we've been discussing this forever. Just don't legitimately put a redirect into text. It's stupid and are helpless if the articles get changed. You'd have to change a hundred plus articles to snap the redirect, which in the case of a template, make one change to itu, hundreds of articles are changed just like that. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? All that has to be changed if A (New York City Subway service) is moved is the one double redirect formed at A (NYCS). --NE2 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discussing this any further. So wait until tomorrow until there is more input from anywhere else. If there are no inputs, then I will assume that nobody likes redirects legitimately put in articles and that templates are a better choice. I will no take a full part in this discussion until tomorrow. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I like the redirects. First I was a "dick", now I'm "nobody"? --NE2 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Normal wikisyntax is always preferable. Unless the template saves us considerable amounts of typing time or facilitates displaying certain types of information better, like Template:IPA, they're pointless. They'll only lead to these kind of wasteful debates over style. There's also the issue of newbies being confronted with two separate sets of code when one would suffice. Redirects are not a problem.
Peter Isotalo 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you learn to use the templates as well, NE2. It doesn't help to use your own idea if nobody approves of it. Why can't you learn to work with others and stop being unilateral? This is why a lot of people have a really hard time dealing with you because you are really stubborn. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 09:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, hello? Outside comment here... Pay attention instead of merely fueling the fire, Imdanumber1. And both of you, concentrate on the issue at hand instead of one another.
Overall, I must say that the attitude of ordering people to use templates that don't seem have any reasonable purpose other than to avoid redirects (which are not a problem to begin with) is very inappropriate. The simpler the system is, the better for all of us, and templates are never simpler than redirects.
Peter Isotalo 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean he should just make his own choice, without seeking support from us, which is what he always refuses to do. My respect for him has gone down, and I want him to do things the proper way, not his way. The proper way is the better choice when we all decide on what to do, not make choices on your own. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is "us" and who has granted "them" the authority of deciding what other editors should be allowed to do? From what I've understood of all this NE2 seems to be saying "let's use normal linkage and redirects instead of templates", while you're saying "no, let's use templates because that's how we [whoever that is] want to do it". Please adjust this interpretation if you feel I'm wrong.
Peter Isotalo 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case, if NE2 wants to use links, then he can, but should use target links, because redirects shows that people are crude, lazy and don't take pride "using the pen". I've never seen a user like him who acts really stuck up and selfish, thinking he owns Wikipedia, but he doesn't. Well, I believe that we should wait and see what other members think of this. If a discussion is held, then we can get somewhere. We'll never get anywhere if we argue and not listen to others. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks won't make your arguments stronger. Stick to the issue at hand.
I've never heard anything about redirects being a problem as long as they're not outright misleading. And good writing lies in producing good, informative, accurate prose, not squabbling over insignificant technicalities. Look at what Wikipedia:Redirection has to say about this:
Some editors have the mistaken impression that fixing redirected links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page uses much more resources than following a redirect, the opposite is true. It is inadvisable to worry about performance anyway.
What exactly do you believe is the upside of using a template?
Peter Isotalo 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Granting, for sake of discussion, Imdanumber1's argument that use of the template makes maintenance of a large number of articles easy, and also granting, for sake of discussion, that some number of editors in a project achieved consensus on its use, then NE2 still raises a valid, challenging use case that template advocates should address. If, to work effectively, the template scheme depends on markup technique outside of what editors typically glean from the cheatsheet, then the templating scheme is flawed. That is because, by in large, what the vast majority of editors know as markup is no more than what they garner from the cheatsheet, and, as Peter Isotalo observes, normal linkage and redirects is what the majority of editors would instinctively use when contributing to a page. Put another way, projects should not form tag teams and assume ownership of articles within project scope by imposing a markup style. At best, a project can recommend a markup style for articles within its scope, but, behind the scenes, they should design their maintenance and article management scheme to work with editors who use nothing other than standard markup as instructed in the tutorial. This is because, in my opinion, it is rarely clear to a general editor how ever many scopes an article may fall under, so one cannot expect such an editor to become familiar with the various urgings of these projects. I for one, would like to think that I can contribute to an article knowing nothing more than what is pointed out to me in the standard Welcome to Wikipedia link sets that get dropped on new user talk pages. Any project that sets out to manage a collection of articles should presume nothing, nor impose anything, outside of the expectations for new editors established in those standard welcoming links. Take care — Gosgood 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is a member of this WikiProject, I can provide insight to what's going on here. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, what I'm seeing here is two issues: 1). whether to use template syntax or not -and- 2). a user's preference of redirects over direct links. [I think number1 (if I may) is not disputing that the templates cause overlinking.]

For the first issue, templates that produce regularly formatted text are usually undesirable. (That was the consensus from the deletion of Template:MNRR, etc., wasn't it?) The syntax of template transclusion is so simple that it's tempting to over-use. That's why I think number1 prefers templates: for their syntax.

On the second issue, I may have brought up the sentiment of "laziness". (I'm sure I have stated that somewhere before.) I respect the naming conventions of articles. That is why when I wikilink, I usually don't link with a redirect. But as I have created redirects myself, their purpose is valid and essential: to point to intended articles. (A good example is the redirects to Live with Regis and Kelly, some of which I created.) NE2 prefers to write articles through redirected links (while creating the redirects), but I don't tell him that is wrong, because it is not. A difference of style doesn't change what matters most: the wikilinks point to the correct articles.

I like templates, but particularly when they're the most helpful: in infoboxes, navigation boxes, and complicated wikitext formats, among other things. Template:NYCS doesn't fall into any of those categories. Any link (transclusion) to that template has to be processed in order to produce (essentially) [[X (New York City Subway service)|X]], which is not a special format, and that's not good practice. Before, when the text was bold, that was still a minor thing. But when that template was proposed to parse service symbols (remember that?), that would have been a better argument to keep transcluding the template. Since that proposal was rejected, here we are.

So here's my suggestion and solution: substitute the template:NYCS. Just add subst: to a preexisting transclusion of {{NYCS}} and you'll avoid "using the template". Whenever you need to add the link to R (New York City Subway service), use {{subst:NYCS|R}} and you save typing time while you fulfill any wish to link directly and not transclude the template. If in subsitution you don't want a link, create a parameter "link" to template:NYCS and call the parameter to not produce the link. (e.g. {{subst:NYCS|R|link=no}} should produce R.) If R (New York City Subway service) should be moved to, say, R (NYCS), there's no need to "fix the link." With this usage, Template:NYCS can still exist as it is, but for substitution purposes.

I would guess that had NE2 knew about template substitution and implemented changes that way, this argument would not have escalated the way it did. And for number1, redirects are not bad and templates for simple substitutions are not the best use of templates. I hope my comment helps both sides in this ever-growing rivalry.

Finally, I have not found any usefulness for using the transclusion of Template:NYCS to keep track of changes. Whatever comments I have said before in that regard I now cannot support. Tinlinkin 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, substing the template doesn't work because of the parserfunctions: A (it looks fine when viewed on the page, but click edit and see what it made) --NE2 07:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, is there a way around that? Tinlinkin 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to create a new template for substitution without the parser functions. (That template will be easy to construct, but I'm not going to do it now because I'm going to sleep.) Tinlinkin 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll bring it up to the village pump. We can use the template but if possible, when we subst {{NYCS|A}}, it will create [[A (New York City Subway service)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanumber1 (talkcontribs)
That's not a problem to me; if you want to use the full form rather than the redirect, feel free. (But don't make useless edits changing them.) --NE2 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suffern station

What is the best title for Suffern station, currently at Suffern (Metro-North station)? I thought Suffern is managed by NJ Transit. And doesn't the Main Line and Bergen County Line formally terminate at Suffern? Tinlinkin 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suffern is managed by Metro North RR. It is in New York State juridition. I don't know why the article is stated it is managed by NJT. Here is the refference : link here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talkcontribs) 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
You should look at the reference in the article; yours says nothing about Metro-North managing it, only stopping there. Also note NJT's pages about Suffern and Sloatsburg, an MTA-operated station. --NE2 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, there is a picture, if you can't see it. Also adding another reference is MNR's about page that also answers to User: Tinlinkin, link here BWCNY 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Where's your source that says that Metro-North manages Suffern station? --NE2 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the link link here: "Metro-North goes to 120 stations distributed in seven counties in New York State--Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester, Bronx, New York (Manhattan), Rockland, and Orange-and two counties in the state of Connecticut--New Haven and Fairfield." Note: Suffern, NY is in Rockland County. As stated, Suffern station is mange by MNR. BWCNY 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Metro-North goes to those stations. It doesn't necessarily manage all of them. Metro-North also goes to Hoboken Terminal, but they certainly don't manage that. --NE2 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
West of Hudson River, the train service is provided by New Jersey Transit with some train cars are owned by Metro North. Those stations in Rockland and Orange Counties do manage by Metro North. Just go to both websites or used an outside photographic source that can verify the claim. BWCNY 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're engaging in original research to try to show that Metro-North manages the station. On the other hand, I have cited a newspaper article that says that NJ Transit manages it. If you are claiming the newspaper is wrong, you should be able to find reliable sources that state clearly that Metro-North manages Suffern station. --NE2 03:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If I'm engaging "original research" then please re-read my posts above stated MNR manages Suffern. How about, show me your newspaper source then I can counter it back with some documents proving Suffern is manage by MNR. BWCNY 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's in the article, where sources should be: [24] --NE2 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I drop my claim, Suffern is owned and managed by NJT. There are official documents stating that Suffern is manage by MNR. But, I sent an e-mail to Metero-North and they reply back, "The Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines are operated for MTA Metro-North Railroad by New Jersey Transit under a service contract between the two railroads. In regard to the ownership of tracks and facilities, Metro-North Railroad has ownership over the New York portion of the Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines. Woodbine Yard is under Metro-North's jurisdiction and Hillburn is under New Jersey Transit jurisdiction. Suffern station is owned and managed operation by New Jersey Transit." -- BWCNY 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ding dong, the schedules are dead?

Talk:Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line): in the case where everything but the schedule uses a name, that name has been found to be the most common. --NE2 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and station succession

Is there a way to reduce the space of the station succession in infoboxes? Put the services on the same line as the station, probably? Also, is the accessiblity icon necessary in station succession? Tinlinkin 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my attempt: (Special:ExpandTemplates is pretty nice) --NE2 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Next north 8th Av: 14th St (A C E)
6th Av local: 14th St (F V)
6th Av express: 34th St (B D)
Next south 8th Av local: Spring St (A C E)
8th Av express: Canal St (A)
6th Av: B'way–Lafayette (B D F V)

So what's going on here? Are we going to make the changes? --NE2 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have patience! You are handling so many things at once (the issues you have here and the bus project at the very least) and there's no need to be anxious on this particular issue. I have not responded because I have been doing other things in life, and I try to give good thoughts to my responses (including one for the post below).
I don't see any problems with your example. I would like to be the one to implement the changes (from here and the above post), and I will prepare myself to do the changes this weekend (Friday at the earliest). So any other comments on improving Template:Infobox NYCS, Template:Subst:NYCS time and the related service templates should be raised soon. Tinlinkin 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the times cannot always be pigeon-holed into exact categories, there should be an optional field for non-default text. I'm willing to do all the modification to the service templates. --NE2 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have updated my scheme at User:Tinlinkin/103rd Street. Of note is User:Tinlinkin/NYCS service, where I am trying to standardize links to services within the NYCS service templates. Tinlinkin 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:NYCS switch proposal

I found out a way to subst a switch template, courtesy of help from the village pump's tech department. I implemented this at my sandbox subpage, and a user helped me as well:

{{subst:User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox|A|subst=subst:}} results in A. Now look at the editing field. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer to type that rather than [[A (NYCS)|]], go ahead. --NE2 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So how would you feel about the syntax? I see that TLK has some ideas too, so he should probably paste them here. Same for other members. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? If you want to use it, go ahead. I'll continue to use normal links. --NE2 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You figured it out, so congrats to you. Again, it's your preference, so you do what suits you best. Tinlinkin 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Station Complexes

I noticed that NE2 moved the Jackson Heights complex, removing the NYCS suffix. I have my doubts on this, as I don't think this is too cool of an idea. What I think we should do is include the word "complex" within the name title, similar to how does that. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "complex" part of the common name? If not, we shouldn't include it. --NE2 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the complex idea. The idea of a complex changes from person to person. The (NYCS) suffix should do. And could we bring things up before making changes? It's kinda rude doing major things without asking for input. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, don't add "complex". There is an issue of disambiguation: If the title cannot be mistaken for something else, then disambiguation is not necessary. Here, it leads to an inconsistent look among the names of articles. I am neutral for now. Tinlinkin 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Article titles are already inconsistent; some have the line name and some have (New York City Subway). --NE2 07:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps of services: input requested

I would like to know if NYCS map M.svg could use any changes before I make one for every service. Thank you. --NE2 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't consider as a map what you created. From my observation, you put little effort just to highlight the M line service with a bold line and dotted line. You are missing bunch of details just to be consider as a map. I suggest to you:
1. Add stations on that line and indicate the terminal(s) and transfer points.
2. Indicated the service pattern by using a legend because the M line has bunch of service patterns.
3. Indicate the Boroughs on the map.
4. ZOOM in the map.
Here is an example drawn by SPUI in which he created the 2004 Subway map edition:
--BWCNY 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not meant as a detailed map. It's a simple map showing the location of the service, like the one on Interstate 95. --NE2 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not use a "related" interstate map to put on a subway article to give a visual look. Well if you want a simple map, the only thing is confusing is the the color and bold/ dotted lines. Just indicated when you create a legend with the service pattern and such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talkcontribs) 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

What do you think about the way it's now formatted on M (New York City Subway service)? I probably will add text to the map, showing where the terminals are. --NE2 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the labels for the terminals should be added. But should there be 3 line types for the M? Tinlinkin 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the text is sufficient to describe that. I added labels; what do you think of it now? Do you think I should use brown rather than red? --NE2 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to comment on that. I initally thought yes, but since the image demonstrates the route and not the service family, I don't think the colors matter. Image:NYCS_R.png (likely to be superceded now) uses red, and I don't think there have been problems with that image. Tinlinkin 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Before I create more, do you think anything else could be improved? I'll probably wait a day or so anyway. --NE2 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The route for the 42nd Street Shuttle is going to look tiny. Labels for the boroughs that the route passes through would look good (also showing land boundaries between boroughs). Other than that, I can't think of other issues at this moment. Tinlinkin 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I may decide to zoom in on the shuttles. What do you think about the map now? --NE2 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Tinlinkin 06:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Just change it to the route color. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Tinlinkin doesn't think the colors matter, and PCH thinks it should be the color the TA uses. I think I'm leaning towards the latter. --NE2 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will start making maps for other services soon; now is your last chance to make suggestions. I've updated the one on M (New York City Subway service) to my current plans. --NE2 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I will go back to the red line; it's not looking too good with the brown. --NE2 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look bad with the color, but whatever makes you more comfortable. For inspriation, look at the service tables at any subway station. They have a small city map, similar to what you're trying to do. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I added maps to all articles but the shuttles. Once I figure out whether to zoom those, I'll add them too. --NE2 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided not to zoom them; the map on IRT 42nd Street Shuttle is a bit small but definitely legible. Anyway, being SVGs, they can be cropped in the future without making a whole new map. Soon I will make maps of all the lines. --NE2 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BMT or IND Culver Line?

Do we have any sources for the elevated Culver Line being called the BMT Culver Line? These two articles both refer to the elevated portion as the IND Culver Line, and the only post-1954 articles that use "BMT Culver Line" are talking about the old Culver Shuttle. Here's a book that says "the former BMT Culver line". Official subway maps from 1954 to 1966, after which lines were colored by service, show the Culver Line as an IND division line, and the 1966 map even shows West Eighth and Stillwell as inter-division transfers. The table on page 197 of [25] shows the Culver Line as IND. --NE2 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will merge the post-1954 non-shuttle information from BMT Culver Line to IND Culver Line, and move the station articles. --NE2 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In reality, the IND and BMT nomenclature is outdated. Radios go from B1(historically BMT) to B2(Historically IMD)in church avenue station. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrLincoln (talkcontribs) 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
The MTA still uses those acronyms on emergency exit signs and elsewhere: [26] --NE2 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll post an example map segment when I can. As to the issue of Fulton and Culver, see my remarks below. -- Cecropia 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
However, you may have a point: the common name is Culver Line, not IND Culver Line. Most MTA usage of the acronyms is either in parentheses after the line name (which is exactly how we disambiguate on Wikipedia) or with a dash like "Culver Line - IND". Maybe we should follow this, using Culver Line (IND) if disambiguation is necessary, and simply Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line with no acronym when it's not necessary. --NE2 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing up public references and internal usage. Officially, the TA/MTA long ago gave up saying BMT and IND in descriptions to the public. Note the date of the two articles you cite, both 1960 or earlier. This was within 6 years of routing the IND D service down the Culver, when the TA was making a big deal of bringing IND Bronx service directly to Coney Island.
Going on the basis of service usage, there IS no IND or BMT, it is all B Division. But remember that we are not talking SERVICES when we talk Culver Line, we are taling physical LINES; and the lines, for contract and legal purposes are still BMT and IND, just as the former South Brooklyn/Culver SURFACE r-o-w was still the Prospect Park and Coney Island r-o-w on engineering track maps until final abandonment a couple of decades ago. So, if we are (properly) attaching IND, IRT, BMT to line names, we should still have "BMT Culver" for Ditmas and south. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cecropia (talkcontribs) 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
For a comtemporary (and very graphic) current OFFICIAL usage of BMT (and for a mixed Brighton/Culver station, as it happens) see Your research work is prodigious, NE2, but PLEASE PLEASE remember that newspaper account and Google searches are not the be-all, end-all of accuracy. GIGO. -- Cecropia 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where do they still attach BMT to the Culver Line? The table on page 197 of [27], sourced to the NYCTA, shows the line as IND all the way to Coney Island. Can you please copy the relevant text from one of these "contract and legal" references, and, if you have one, from an equivalent document on the elevated part of the Fulton Street Line? Thank you. --NE2 17:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible replacement for time periods?

Imdanumber1 added images like Image:NYCS-SSI-nightsonly.svg to the station listings recently. I think the awkward numbers after services could be replaced by these, with an alt attribute so you can mouse over and see what it is. For example:

Alate nights only

instead of



<7>weekdays, 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m., in the peak direction

instead of


Does this look like a good idea? --NE2 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While I think that is a great idea, I must oppose, for this reason:
We need a link to an explanation on time period details, and if you remember, NE2, I had a proposal to use {{Click}}, which was frowned upon regarding CSS. I like your idea, but right now, I'm neutral on it. See what others may think to "break the tie". --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the image description page could include text about that? --NE2 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I compiled a disorganized but complete list of cases on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines/Notes for possible conversion to use icons for times. I'm thinking we could use a partly-filled 24-hour clock instead of the current icons to make it clearer what's being shown. If it's in the peak direction, we use a diamond, and if it's weekends, we use gray. Maybe for the diamond services we could even do 7Full-time circle service; diamond service weekdays in peak direction until 10:00 p.m.Full-time circle service; diamond service weekdays in peak direction until 10:00 p.m., with the diamond shaded properly of course. --NE2 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think using the alt attribute will work here. But in specific stations, the time periods should be explicitly stated, for people who turn off the alt attribute and for printing purposes. (This is a problem I have seen with Template:Subst:NYCS time.) The link to List of New York City Subway services#Time periods may still need to be included somehow.
See a mockup at User:Tinlinkin/103rd Street. The code is not perfect yet, though. You may edit that page and the other 3 links there in my userspace. Tinlinkin 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes; what do you think? --NE2 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Under "Services", I prefer each service to be on its own line, and the notes normal size. I won't be back until late tonight, so you (the people in this WikiProject) have my permission to build new related pages in my userspace as you see fit (e.g. templates for other services and other examples of infoboxes), as long as you don't abuse it! Leave a message on my talk page for any pages you create. [Of course, you may build examples in your own userspace if you prefer.] Tinlinkin 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful not to make the infobox too large. West Fourth Street-Washington Square is already big, and a separate line per service would add six more lines. --NE2 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The services in the main section are more important than the station succession. The latter is what makes the infobox large, and that is the better candidate to compact. (I'll continue this topic in a new thread.) Tinlinkin 06:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make the infobox smaller, using a 12 pt. font so it won't be as long. No opinion on changing the width, however. What I am also going to do is to try to implement this on my sandbox subpage as well. I may use some of TLK's ideas as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "font-size: 90%" as that is used in other infoboxes. (You can't be sure of what default font size a person uses.) Tinlinkin 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I started implementing this on the BMT Astoria Line and BMT Broadway Line stations. --NE2 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I finished converting everything. If anything turned out incorrectly, please let me know. --NE2 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Line maps

Map of the IRT Lexington Avenue Line and the services that feed it

I've started making maps of the lines; what do you think about the format at right? --NE2 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Got some for lines other than subways? ---- DanTD 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I made LIRR GIS data a while ago for Image:LIRR map.svg, and can easily make individual line or service maps from that. I'd like to finish with the subway first though. --NE2 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'll wait. ---- DanTD 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the acronyms (IND/BMT/IRT) necessary?

This is essentially a continuation of a discussion further up. Is there a reason that we place the acronym before the line name? Per use common names, we should be using the most common precise name. Precision says that names like "A-C-E Line" or "N and R Line" are not good names, but the acronym is not normally needed for precision. There is only one Concourse Line, only one Nassau Street Line, only one Jamaica Line, etc. in the subway, and these are the most common precise names. The MTA, when they disambiguate, usually puts the acronym after the line name - such as "Broadway Line (BMT)" or "Archer Avenue Line - IND". The former is also our method of disambiguation, and I see no reason why we cannot use this for the few ambiguous cases, where multiple lines in the subway system have that name (Broadway, 63rd Street, and Archer Avenue are all I can think of, unless we count former els like Lexington Avenue). When the name is otherwise ambiguous, like Crosstown Line, we can either use the acronym or use (New York City Subway). It should be noted that even in possibly ambiguous cases like the Broadway Line, the MTA and the media use simply "Broadway Line". (Note however that the MTA uses "Broadway Line (IRT)" at least once, referring of course to the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line.)

The other problem, also detailed in the earlier discussion, and the one that made me think about this, is that sometimes it is not clear which "division" a B Division line belongs to. Most are obvious, but the elevated parts of the Culver and Fulton Street Lines present problems, and the Second Avenue Subway may be worse. It was planned as an IND line for years, but now the only service in it will be the Q, a BMT service. (The T will not use any other lines, and the connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel will not be used for revenue service, under current plans.)

The obvious corollary is that station article names don't need the acronym either, so instead of "103rd Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)" we would use "103rd Street (Lexington Avenue Line)". The only exception may be the Broadway Line (BMT), especially since some of its station names are also used on the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. (But Canal Street (New York City Subway) is a worse problem, and we haven't really had any issues with it.)

If this is not too long, and you did read, please comment. I will be willing to do the work of moving and fixing double redirects, so that is not an issue. --NE2 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a "leave it alone" stance with this issue. It wasn't a problem before, I don't see how it is now. Sometimes, it's good to let some things go. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I kind of lean toward PCH's comment. I would say, there are so few instances where there is a problem that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I would not advocate a simple "Brighton Line," or "West End Line" because then he have a disambiguation problem of major location. There is a well-known Brighton Line in England; there is (or was) a West End Line in Boston. SO we might be in the position of saying "NYCTA Brighton Line" or "Brighton Line (New York City)." I believe that the way we are doing things is the simplest and cleanest. "BMT Brighton Line" can only be in NYC. Use of the division names is still used in contracts, as NE2 himself is aware of, so they are still meaningful. They also preserve historic context and give the reader a good way to see important correlations between different lines. -- Cecropia 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
NE2 also brings up an interesting point in talking about Culver on the one hand, and the Fulton Street el remnant on the other. What's interesting is that the Culver Line was rechained with IND chaining in 1954, though there was no pressing need to do so, yet it uses BMT radio channel. OTOH the Liberty Avenue Line (the proper name of the Dual Contract part of the old el) retained the BMT chaining and chaining letter (K) but uses IND radio. Perhaps an issue is that the BMT Culver Line (if we allow that it is that) is still more or less contiguous with the BMT system, with a ramp to City Yard at Coney Island Yards and connections in the Coney Island area. The Liberty Avenue Line, however, has no connection whatever with the BMT any longer, since the structure that connected it with the other BMT Lines in ENY is completely gone. -- Cecropia 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify what relevance the old IND/BMT split has in the present day. B-1 and B-2 are used for radio frequencies, and probably the punch boxes and signals. At least the signal list from the mid-1990s uses IND/BMT. IND/BMT are sometimes used by the MTA when referring to stations and lines. Chaining is separated between IND and BMT. These don't always match up, at least on the elevated parts of the Fulton Street Line and Culver Line, and according to [28][29][30][31], the Flushing Line uses B-1 (!). I really think the best way to resolve this is to move at least IND Culver Line to either Culver Line or Culver Line (New York City Subway). The others can probably stay where they are, but the Culver is ambiguous. --NE2 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say Culver Line (New York City Subway) would be reasonable, provided the article mentions the ambiguity. It is not surprising that the Flushing Line uses B-1 radio, since it has been isolated from the IRT system for 65 years and relies on the BMT for track connections, and major shopping (at Coney Island).
Perhaps (in the nomenclature section (??)) we should describe the "divisional" usages something like this:
  • Historically, BMT, IND and IRT describe the separate companies' operating lines and services that are now part of the New York City subway system;
  • For operational and labor purposes, services on the former IRT are now described as Division A and service on the BMT and IND are described as Division B. Operating personnel are designated as belonging to one or the other division, and pick their jobs accordingly;
  • Each of the three traditional divisions have their own radio frequencies, which are described as A (IRT), B-1 (BMT) and B-2 (IND). By and large the radio frequencies follow the original companies closely, but there are a few exceptions; for example, the historically IRT Flushing Line uses B-1 (BMT) radio frequency, as it is connected to the BMT system but isolated from the IRT system. When a train moves between B-1 and B-2 territory, the train crew must switch the frequencies on their radios accordingly;
  • For the purpose of line and station descriptions, and especially for contract purposes, BMT, IND and IRT are still used. -- Cecropia 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Do you know how signals and punch boxes, and the associated "towers", fit in? --NE2 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A really good question, and one I don't have a current official source for; however, Peter Dougherty, who does the excellent and detailed track book, does have access, and the current edition shows separate BMT, IRT and IND towers, including master towers, which are relatively (in NYC transit geological time) new. If the towers are BMT, IRT, IND, then I would expect the punch boards and signals to be also. -- Cecropia 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a list of towers: [32] The IND and BMT have been essentially integrated here, with one tower (Essex) controlling significant portions of the Nassau Street and Sixth Avenue Lines. --NE2 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The poster of that list is very knowledgeable in signaling matters, however, I'm not sure if he is correct in merging BMT and IND. Of note is the fact that the BMT has gone heavily to master towers, while the IND has not. So as to whether towers and signalling are B Division or BMT and IND I am at this time still agnostic. -- Cecropia 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7