Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)

Why are the addresses of the stations not listed on the maps?

In Washington, DC the Metro maps all list the address or intersection not just the street name.

There is most definitely a niche market for directories of street address of train and subway stations all over the US.

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the MTA New York City Subway map. For one thing, stations in New York City do not have addresses, per se; most subway entrances are not part of buildings, but are in the middle of sidewalks. In addition, the subway map is already crowded enough as it is without having the intersection listed under every station. Each line on the map typically has the street it runs under/over noted (e.g., the IND Sixth Avenue Line has "6 Av" noted along its length); this is sufficient to identify the location of the great majority of stations. —Larry V 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you have seen the shuttle station listings, I have reconfigured them. I will be doing the same to the regular subway service articles, starting with this one. The MTA does this with their information. (example). --imdanumber1 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed this article against the Good Article (GA) criteria, and find that the article doesn't seem to meet one or more categories. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title.

1. Well-written: Borderline - The #Service history section's paragraphing needs tidied up, but the article is (otherwise) readable.
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Failed - The article cites no reliable sources (see WP:SELFPUB) - the only reference is to a myspace-style AOL Groups site.
7. Images: Pass

My thanks to the lead editors for your hard work; please keep it up.

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made (or alternatively seek a GA Review).

Regards, AGK 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS):  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  

5. It is stable.

    

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned):   b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:  

Comments: This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it yet qualifies for 'good article' status for the following reasons:

• (1a) The Service History section is written in proseline, and it should be rewritten either as a timeline or, preferably, in paragraph-form.
• (3a) The article feels like it is lacking some information: the line opened in 1904, but when did construction begin, and why did city officials feel that there was a need to build this line? In other words, give a brief history of the creation of the line -- this should probably have its own section.
• (3a) Beyond the service history, there must be other noteworthy information about the line: do nearby residents complain about the noise, does it operate 24-hours a day, are there insufficient trains, is service generally on-time? Have any interesting/newsworthy events ever occured on the line?
• (2a) The inline-citations are pretty random; didn't all the information from the Service History section come from the same few sources? Why are some lines cited, and some not? Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the inline-cites (but do keep the reference section); or at the top or bottom of the section, write: References: [1], [2]
• (1b) One last minor point -- the pictures are a bit clunky, and should be reorganized slightly: one requires a frame, and they are misaligned (try putting their code at the very top of the section, so they will automatically line up, and perhaps move the two small bullet images to the left-hand side).

As I said, it's a decent article, but right now there is little to distinguish it from the 28 other subway services in New York. When these issues have been addressed, feel free to resubmit the article for GA review! --Xiaphias 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

(3a) should be handled by a link to original IRT subway. With (2a), the problem is that the main source is the unreliable "line by line history" site. There are maps and newspaper articles that can be used; I'll have a go at it eventually. --NE2 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the Line by Line history page is not that its unreliable, it doesn't point to any primary, or even secondary sources. Eric B e-mailed me where he got them from, although it would make sense to put them onto the page. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even if it did cite sources, we'd preferably use those sources. --NE2 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have protected the page given the ongoing revert war. I would remind both parties of WP:3RR and WP:NPA. If you have issues over the content, you should be discussing them on this talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, then you should seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I'd just like to add this redirect, 1 (BMT) (edit talk links history), (which I just initialized "Properly" for the target Q (New York City Subway service) (edit talk links history)) seems a very cryptic name and ought to be avoided--its certainly no aid to other editors. As best as I can see, all this is a Typing-aid templates in article space instead of template space and I'm tempted to nominate it for RFD/MFD. I'd hope the originator will do the classy thing and just {{db-author}} it, instead of costing others time. Redirects really need to have a meaningful name, or widely understood abbreviation, not just be some locally understood bit of jargon.

• • I think I can see why 1 (BMT) was created. It's a hard link to the historical service, which at the moment happens to be described in Q (New York City Subway service), but might—indeed, probably will—be described somewhere else in the future. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Moreover, there is some template imbedded in that article which takes the pipetrick argument '|Q}}' which apparently concocts a link... this shouldn't be overused, as per my comments on that talk on the rough shape of the page quality overall and the obvious overuse of links in general. Those are only tolerable as long as it takes to refactor the page. I fiddled a little, but clearly sections by sublines, but time periods (as I added) or by both is in order to organize the page for readers. If only so as to break up the tedious text of the historical litany.

• • IMO, the service history sections are pretty awful for pretty much all of the NYCS service pages. It's a very big job to edit them so that they: A) read well as prose; B) are accurate; C) present all of the desired information in a sensible way. Part of the problem is that the services have changed so often. Practically every service that is physically possible has been operated at some point. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• So please focus on the fixups, pretty please even, and try to remember reverts are a slap in the face to people, and just asking for a slap back. They really ought to be banned except to revert vandals. // FrankB 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• • Ditto to that. I've taken a look at the work both of these editors have done—both on this page and on many other pages. Both have made edits I disagreed with, and both have made important contributions that are extremely useful. They need to find a way to value each other's contributions. The NYC Subway pages are vast and heavily inter-connected. It is especially important to seek consensus before making any change that fundamentally changes the relationship among various pages. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whatever is done with the disambiguation redirect, we need to note that a few pages exist at similar names: BMT 6, BMT 12, BMT 13. --NE2 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the correct "long name" for BMT 1 should be 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service). This would be totally clear, and would mirror the article naming conventions for the current NYC Subway services, e.g., 1 (New York City Subway service). Marc Shepherd 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's probably best for that and the other services. It avoids an (non-parenthethical) abbreviation in an article name and makes the title of the article clearer per above. Tinlinkin 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the history, the text was originally rewritten by NE2, then "cleaned up" by Imdanumber1, and then NE2 reverted some redirect changes, which sparked the edit war.

Here is my opinion on NE2's decision to revert in order to reinsert redirects in this article (the third link of the above)--Presented as "(NE2's version) -> (Imdanumber1's version)", I either agree with NE2's reversion of a particular link, or disagree:

1. 1 (BMT) -> Q (New York City Subway service): predecessor service, agree per Marc Shepherd if the predecessor was so much different than the current service
2. 3 (NYCS) -> 3 (New York City Subway service): redirect from abbreviation, disagree
3. First subway (New York City) -> History of the IRT subway before 1918: specific name. agree
4. Lexington Avenue Line (IRT) -> IRT Lexington Avenue Line: cosmetic (non-consequential), disagree
5. Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line -> IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line: cosmetic, disagree
6. Times Square–42nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) ->Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway)#IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line platforms: specific section: agree
7. South Ferry (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) -> South Ferry (New York City Subway): specific section: agree
8. Brooklyn Branch -> IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line: part of a whole: not fond of this redirect (I have never heard "Brooklyn Branch" before) but agree
9. Eastern Parkway Line or New Lots Line -> IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line: distinct sections: agree
10. Nostrand Avenue Line (IRT) -> IRT Nostrand Avenue Line: cosmetic, disagree

However, I also see that because "IRT" is implied throughout the article unless indicated otherwise, NE2 tried to reduce redundancies of "IRT". So the links probably should have been piped instead of forced redirects. So take my opinion, or leave it, please. Tinlinkin 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those reasons seem reasonable. However, there is no section on the IRT Bway-7th Line, but will be if the article gets revamped or if the station gets merged with South Ferry-Whitehall Street on the BMT line, so that can probably stay. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

We may need to think about what to do with South Ferry when the new station opens, since the old station will still be there, City Hall-style. Historical references to South Ferry (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) will want to be to the old station, but current references to the new one.

By the way, I would not have reverted had he only changed the "disagree" ones, but would still be annoyed, and would pursue sanctions if he continued. --NE2 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

When the new station opens, we should create an article called Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway), which would include the content of the present Whitehall Street (BMT Broadway Line) article, and would also describe the new South Ferry station. As NE2 suggests, the original SF station article would remain as-is. Marc Shepherd 11:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Why does NE2 say that he "would still be annoyed, and would pursue sanctions if I continued"? If he doesn't like the fact that his ideas are not in favor, then he has to live with that. This is one of his attitude problems that I stated some time ago, where he has a history on his talk page of having a disrespectful attitude towards many users. I don't want to be a crybaby, but I've said this before and I'll say this again: the only way that we can get along here is by assuming good faith towards other users, protecting and respecting each other and not bullying with guidelines and other nonsense. If NE2 has a proposal and his idea gets turned down, he has to live with the fact that he has been outvoted, should move on and not feed the fire. This goes for everyone else. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're the one whose ideas were "turned down", both at the Wikipedia-wide level and at the local project level. --NE2 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You need a reality check, you insignificant jerk. You're the one who has disrupted the project ever since you came, okay? You caused a lot of trouble, and I will prove it. Here's a list:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#What to do with Template:NYC simplebus: You first stirred up trouble with Alphachimp with the bus template.
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points is listed for deletion: He requested a category I created for deletion while a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Station complexes was taking place.
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Template:NYCS: He requested several templates for deletion, used to link to organization pages, such as the LIRR an the Metro-North. Did he bother to ask if it was okay, or even request input? No.
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Service History Edits: He removed a lot of information from the train service articles. He could have rewrote the section to fix the copyright violation, but no: he removed the whole section.
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#To bold or not to bold?: Pacific Coast Highway questioned NE2's edits to Template:NYCS, where he removed the boldface. Sure, he should have requested input to see if it was okay, but no, he went ahead and made the change.
6. User talk:NE2/Archive 5#Seek consensus please.: I posted a discussion on why he removed the borough parameter and removed two sections, the station information and other information sections, which I reverted.
7. on March 24, I was blocked from editing for 10 hours because of this edit, where i reverted NE2's use of redirects.
8. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Imdanumber1's mass revert of station moves: NE2 moved a lot of subway station articles to reflect station signage. I reverted, and he moved them back. This resulted in a two to three long week discussion that eventually died out and never popped up again. I eventually moved the articles back and left it at that.
9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway). NE2 split up the article unilaterally, saying the name was made up.
10. On April 27, 2007, NE2 moved several articles, where he was supposed to replace the en dash with the hyphen, but removed the suffix. He brought the issue up a few days later at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Are the acronyms (IND/BMT/IRT) necessary?, and no one agreed. The articles remained until now.
11. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name)): Same as above.
12. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station naming, again: This is where I got really annoyed, because he insisted on common names where he was wrong. Marc and TLK stated their opinions regarding this issue.

I don't believe this will end anytime soon. You see the issues brought up above? They all come back to NE2. Marc, you said NE2 isn't a troll, but see above. These issues will let everyone know all the trouble he has caused because he shows very high signs of trollish behavior. He drives people away by the way he approaches other Wikipedians. This is probably one of the reasons why Alphachimp hasn't been in recent action around here. Well guess what? NE2 may have gotten on my nerves, and because of this, I had plans of leaving because he got me blocked and left irrelevant personal criticism commenting on my RFA. But I will not give into his actions. If he has to be forced to learn how to determine consensus and stop ranting about like he owns the place, so be it, that's what he signed up for. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how this discussion ended up on this page. But anyhow, I think NE2 is a highly energetic editor, who has mixed some extremely good ideas with some highly disruptive ones and harmful ones, the latter often implemented with little-to-no consensus. Marc Shepherd 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Marc, you don't know NE2 as well as I do. If you looked at the above, you'll see all the trouble he stirred up. If he has an opinion that can be considered as an improvement, he should say so, have a discussion, see what everyone else thinks. He doesn't listen to anyone. That is why a lot of people have trouble working with him. Just check his talk page archives. And you're right, most of his edits and implementations reflected hardly any sort of consensus, if any at all. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have altered the disambiguation RDR at the top of the page to comport with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#BMT service article name changes.

If any further improvements are desired, please edit the page in the normal way, and make each change in a thoughtful way. Repeatedly reverting and re-reverting each other's edits will simply lead to the page being protected again, and could easily result in sanctions for either or both of the offending parties. Marc Shepherd 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough, Marc. But if NE2 doesn't correct his behavior soon, he ill get blocked, I don't care how, though. He has a history of bad behavior on his talk page archive and he is a real jerk. He doesn't care about other people, he shows no remorse, and he thinks he owns the place. That is unacceptable.

As for you Marc, I am glad we have Wikipedians like you that people can trust and respect. NE2 won't get any respect for his trollish behavior, and I have proof. Check his talk page archives. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, NE2 is really getting of my nerves, but I don't think you can block him just because you disagree with his edits. Otherwise, I would have been blocked for my angry edit summaries against those vandals, who are even worse. The Legendary Ranger 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good morning. A good article review is taking place at Wikipedia:Good article review#1 (New York City Subway service). All are invited to discuss at the nomination page. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but the review has just failed. Part of the problem may be that you made the proposal in the wrong forum. You submitted it to Wikipedia:Good article review, which is the place for: A) Good Articles that no longer merit that status; and, B) Articles wrongly denied Good Article status. This would have been the place to go if you thought the original denial was wrong.

But that wasn't the situation here. Instead, you accepted the original reviewers' comments as valid, and tried to improve the article. At that point, the next step would be to renominate the article for a fresh Good Article review, based on changes made since the last time it was proposed and failed.

Personally, I am doubtful that the renomination would succeed. The article has been proposed twice—four months ago, and two months ago. It hasn't really changed all that much since the last GA review, about two months ago. Any GA reviewer is going to be immediately suspicious when so little time has gone by. Although I am disqualified as a reviewer, I don't think it will pass.

I would recommend asking either of the two reviewers who "failed" it last time whether they think it's a reasonable candidate now. Marc Shepherd 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. Good idea. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have stumbled across these rollsigns and route number images at WikiCommons New York City Subway rollsigns, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, sorry if it isn't.

Alot of these appear to be gif bitmaps, when vector based images would serve a better purpose. As I have had an attempt at doing some myself that hasn't been entirely fruitful, I have since found out that Inkscape has a handy trace tool and would assume that this would make the task alot more straight forward to do. I'm just looking to see if others feel this is required & if these new versions would be an acceptable replacement to the exisiting ones. Following is an example of what I am proposing.

 

Thanks Rfsjim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Keep the file name the same like the .GIF counterpart and see what you can do for the others. But bring up the suggestion to WT:NYCPT and see what the other members of the project think of the idea, as this article is within the WP:NYCPT scope. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A user named "The Legendary Ranger" removed content on this wikipage and that of the F Train stating that a number of peak trains terminate at terminals other than the regular terminals (at 137th Street instead of 242th Street and at Kings Highway instead of Coney Island, respectively). I understand that other lines have a similar situation (and I would certainly add that info to those articles later), but that fact does not make this "not notable", as was stated by in the comments section of the edit. A peak hour change of terminals that makes the line significantly shorter is certainly "notable" for the riders of the lines affected. A peak hour shortening of many trains on the line is no less notable than a peak hour extension of a line to a further terminal - yet, such peak hour extensions are mentioned in the wikiarticles of many lines such as for the B train (to Bedford Park), the A (to Rockaway Park), and the 5 (to Dyre Avenue). Also, please note that these peak hour shortening terminal changes are official and documented because they are on the official MTA timetables (see the links on the page) and are on the signs on the trains. Thus they are verifiable facts. They should not be removed without proper reason.

I welcome constructive commentary on this. I will put both statements back into the articles after a period of time if no proper reason is given for their removal. Thank you very much.

72.80.208.20 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply