Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →En dashes: new section |
|||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
::Okay, then I just fixed it. I wish somebody had replied to my question about it on the WP:NYPT talk page. ----[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
::Okay, then I just fixed it. I wish somebody had replied to my question about it on the WP:NYPT talk page. ----[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::I saw your question on WT:NYCPT, but I didn't respond to it because I thought you had already figured it out. Sorry about that. [[User:Acps110|Acps110]] <sup>([[User talk:Acps110|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Acps110|contribs]])</sup> 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
:::I saw your question on WT:NYCPT, but I didn't respond to it because I thought you had already figured it out. Sorry about that. [[User:Acps110|Acps110]] <sup>([[User talk:Acps110|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Acps110|contribs]])</sup> 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== En dashes == |
|||
I reverted your reversion of the move of [[Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)]]. I hadn't totally sorted out the MOS vote on this from last summer, but it appears that [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting#Spacing of endashes|it was decided]] that a space was no longer necessary around an en dash between elements that had spaces themselves, unless those spaced elements were the ends of a range (i.e., dates). You'll see that the current language at [[MOS:ENDASH]] reflects this. |
|||
Your move-log message referred to the NYCPT' project's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Dash usage|naming convention]]. This says nothing about spacing and cannot trump policy (i.e., the MOS, to which it even refers) without a specific, explicit exception in policy. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:42, 4 March 2012
Template:Archive box collapsible
User:173.8.9.25
It seems that the rest of his edits are vandalism too. I don't know to warn users nor to undo multiple edits, and I am not sure which of his edits are vandalism. I tried to report him, but was declined. Vcohen (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are many templates for warning users. Just copy and paste the appropriate one onto a User's talk page, and then you'll have better luck when you report them at AIV. Generally, Admins like to see an escalating Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the user's talk page before they block them, but there are exceptions. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
LI Bus transition to privatization
I have begun putting the NICE tags into LIRR stations, but I won't update the articles/infoboxes until the day before the takeover. Also, before you revert, note that NICE uses a lowercase "n", not the MTA's capital "N" prefix. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer you not update until the day AFTER MTA service ends, because we are not reporting the news; We are writing an encyclopedia, with no deadline. Thanks, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've stopped for now. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's 1-1-2012 on WP's clock, so I updated the list. Should I continue? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that Veolia is probably not operating yet, because even though it's after midnight in London, here on the US East Coast it is still 8:30 PM. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, what's with the limited not being listed separately? On Veolia's schedules, they are distinctly separate (n20L, n22L). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- They are the same service; and we are not a travel guide. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, what's with the limited not being listed separately? On Veolia's schedules, they are distinctly separate (n20L, n22L). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that Veolia is probably not operating yet, because even though it's after midnight in London, here on the US East Coast it is still 8:30 PM. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's 1-1-2012 on WP's clock, so I updated the list. Should I continue? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've stopped for now. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
&
Just curious - what is the advantage of "&" over "&" ? I have seen many cases on many websites where the result is & being what is actually displayed.--JimWae (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- A web browser's renderer tries to interpret "&" as HTML. "&" is an HTML escape sequence that displays "&" in plain text and tells the renderer not think of it as HTML. If the semi-colon is forgotten, then it will display incorrectly. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
R1 103
After some initial remodifications that I did to the article (like putting 103 back in). I modified the final version to show that 103 was in the consist BUT it was actually 401 with 103's number plates put on (and stickers over the inside numbers).
--Allan (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You may have ridden in a car marked with 103 number plates, but the TA has a VERY long history of re-numbering cars. (Shop queens that can't be easily repaired are magically spotted back in service on a road train; A car that has an odd number has ads in it for an even car; Stuff like that.) 103 wasn't restored over-night, and there is no reliable source to say that it was in the consist. Last year or the year before, one of the lead motors for the Holiday consist sported an IRT R17's number! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Services for the line list
I need your advice. I see that the List of New York City Subway lines shows some services for each line, but it is not complete. For example, for the IND Eighth Avenue Line, it uses the {{NYCS Eighth south}} template and shows A/C/E, but I can replace the template with {{NYCS Eighth center}} to show A/B/C/D and reflect the presence of "orange" services on the line. However, it seems that there is no template that shows all the services for the whole line. What can I do?
IMHO, the most correct is to create new templates, but it's a lot of work. I can also simplify the list manually adding all services without their scheduled hours, like here, but it would make the article worse. Have you more ideas? Vcohen (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct, I've never noticed that! I've made a new template {{NYCS Eighth all}} (A
B
C
D
E
trains) for this purpose.
- (A trick to show a template with a clickable link is to wrap it with the {{tl}} template.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It means that I have to continue with the rest. Vcohen (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- What others are missing all the services? I thought that was the only one. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was "for example". I didn't check them all. The IND Sixth Avenue Line seems OK, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line doesn't, and so on... Vcohen (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fourth Avenue is correct, only the D, N and R serve it. If you are thinking of the B and Q, those serve the Brighton line. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. DeKalb Avenue is listed as being on both the BMT Fourth Avenue and the BMT Brighton lines. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oops... So, the only problem I've found is the IRT Jerome Avenue Line that is missing the 5. But don't trust me. Vcohen (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- That template does exist, it's {{NYCS Jerome south}} (4
5
trains). Have you found this page which lists all the available templates? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have found it, but didn't check now, sorry.
- By the way, why doesn't the case of DeKalb Avenue happen at other stations that serve several lines each? For example, Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway) serves 4 services and belongs to 4 lines, but none of these lines has all the 4 services listed in its article. Vcohen (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Each line that lists Coney Island as a terminal only includes the service that terminates on that line. The other services and lines are listed in the Transfers column because none of the trains travel through the station and each line can operate independently. Crossover switches for a line are not affected by any other line. There can be up to 4 trains departing or entering the station at a time. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- That template does exist, it's {{NYCS Jerome south}} (4
- Oops... So, the only problem I've found is the IRT Jerome Avenue Line that is missing the 5. But don't trust me. Vcohen (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was "for example". I didn't check them all. The IND Sixth Avenue Line seems OK, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line doesn't, and so on... Vcohen (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- What others are missing all the services? I thought that was the only one. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It means that I have to continue with the rest. Vcohen (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's replace the example. The structure of Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets is similar to the one of DeKalb Avenue. And in the Services column only the services belonging to the appropriate line are shown, like in all other cases. Only DeKalb Avenue is an exception. Why? Vcohen (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The answer is track connections. At Hoyt–Schermerhorn Sts, the Crosstown line is always the same tracks, and the Fulton Street line is always the same tracks. There are no physical track connections between the two lines. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Sts is more like Seventh Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line) than DeKalb.
- At DeKalb, a train can use any of the three connections from the north to either of the two lines to the south. For examples, via Tunnel to Fourth Ave line (N, R trains), via Tunnel to Brighton line (J Shuttle), via Bridge to Fourth Ave line (D, N trains), via Bridge to Brighton line (B, Q trains). The only constant is that stopping trains via the Tunnel are always the inner tracks, and stopping trains via the Bridge are always the outer tracks. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. I have to learn this topic. Vcohen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, after doing my home exercises... I see two approaches, both taken in different articles.
- You have explained the second approach. Now, how do you explain the existing inconsistency?
- By the way, there are additional stations with switches, at least these two: Jay Street – MetroTech (IND Fulton Street Line) and Prospect Park (BMT Brighton Line), and they are consistently presented using the first approach. Vcohen (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Jay Street is the same as Hoyt–Schermerhorn Sts, and so is Prospect Park. Each line has dedicated tracks that are always the same. The outer tracks at Jay Street belong to the Culver line and the inner tracks are the Fulton Street line. Prospect Park's outer tracks belong to the Franklin Ave line and the inner tracks belong to the Brighton line. With DeKalb Ave, which tracks would you assign to the Brighton line, and which ones to the Fourth Ave line? How can it be displayed any other way? All those services stop at DeKalb at various times during the day regardless of which line they came from or are going to.
- There is no other station in the system where two lines are intertwined and trains from both lines stop on the same tracks. Every other example has tracks dedicated to each line. On the list of lines page, each line shows only the services that serve it, but on the individual articles, the services are displayed in the services column with no transfers because everything shares tracks at DeKalb Ave.
- With the transfer passageway at Atlantic Ave – Pacific Street (Fourth Ave) that was added in the late 1970s, DeKalb Ave has become less important as a transfer point. There are only two bridge services (B, Q) and one tunnel service (R) stopping there now. There used to be many more. Prior to the 1970s, the IRT and Brighton line had transfers at Atlantic, but the Fourth Ave line was a separate station. Since then, all services stop at Atlantic, local and express. An example of using that transfer passageway, is when the Q is split into two separate services during weekend construction. Q trains from Manhattan terminate at the Fourth Ave line platforms, and Q shuttles for the Brighton line terminate on that line. Passengers are instructed to transfer through the passageway to continue their trip. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- We are speaking about three entities:
- line,
- route,
- track.
- Two lines share tracks, hence the confusion. Let's try to factor out the tracks and speak about lines and routes only. For each line we can definitely say what services serve it (you say, "each line shows only the services that serve it"), so we can divide the list of services at DeKalb Ave between the Services and Transfers columns. Just to make the articles consistent. Vcohen (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well you can't really factor out the tracks. I tend to think of DeKalb more from a standpoint of the north connections (via Bridge or via Tunnel) than what line to the south. (Especially because the transfer opportunities are much better at the next station, Atlantic Ave.) I think it can stay the way it is on the individual line pages because each shows the splits north and south of the station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- We are speaking about three entities:
Thanks
Say, I appreciate the barnstar and also your locating that goof in my archiving. Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly! (I was bold with the archiving spacing because I figured you probably wouldn't mind.)
Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Line template talk pages
Can you tell me why you've redirected all line template talk pages to the WT:NYCPT talk page? ----DanTD (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Many of those talk pages didn't exist, and very few people watchlist those templates. A question on a template talk page could go unanswered for a long time. All of the discussions that I blanked with the redirects were stale and some were years old. (They still exist in the history, and perhaps I should create a log of that for the WT:NYCPT archive.) The WT:NYCPT talk page is a good place to redirect to as a central point for members to coordinate from. This is especially good for far-reaching changes which involve multiple templates. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Number of services
Excuse me, how do you count the services? I guess you ignore the <6> and <7>. Vcohen (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Right. The description says, "As of June 2010, the New York City Subway system has 24 lettered or numbered route designations." That means you count all the letters and numbers once, then you add the three shuttles. The <6> and <7> are not included in the count because they are not separate services. (They don't even operate in the other direction.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the logic. If we count each letter only once, why doesn't it work with the S? If it's important that they only operate in the peak direction, why doesn't it work with the Z? Maybe, it's just the official opinion of the MTA. If so, this is the only reason. Vcohen (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Broken down by division...
- IRT – 7 services, 1 shuttle (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 42nd St Shuttle)
- IND – 7 services, 1 shuttle (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Rockaway Park Shuttle)
- BMT – 7 services, 1 shuttle (J, L, M, N, Q, R, Z, Franklin Ave Shuttle)
- Total – 8 + 8 + 8 = 24
- Broken down by division...
- I don't see the logic. If we count each letter only once, why doesn't it work with the S? If it's important that they only operate in the peak direction, why doesn't it work with the Z? Maybe, it's just the official opinion of the MTA. If so, this is the only reason. Vcohen (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Terminals and bi-directional tracks
I need to resort to your help again.
You've already seen my station layout diagrams. They are almost ready, but I've found a serious error. Some of terminal stations have two bi-directional tracks with trains short turning on them, while others look like usual stations with trains turning back behind the station. Since I show direction for each track, I need to know which of them are bi-directional. I tried to find it out for each station in the list, but didn't succeed.
Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I see your work in progress. My deep bow to you. There will be a lot of questions. Vcohen (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've created a subpage for this discussion using your schematics. You may ask any questions there. (Sorry about misspelling your name.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line)
You'd probably know this from checking the history, but the anonymous IP that edited Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line), adding the closing date from last year did add a source in a previous edit, but it was with a source with a broken link. Do you have any way of finding a version of the link he/she used that isn't broken? ----DanTD (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Although I am not Acps110...
- It wasn't a broken link, it was only "ref" with "name": <ref name="nyt-2011-04-28"/>. There is no reference named "nyt-2011-04-28" either in this article or in any other one. The IP user seems to have copied the syntax from another article and changed the date. He didn't know he had to add a URL.
- I've found a source that really says that the station closed on the mentioned date: [1]. However, the MTA map (updated as of October 2011, later than April 2011) shows the station as active: [2]. I guess that nycsubway has copied the date from some other source that meant the station was closing until the next racing season.
- Vcohen (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bus connections on The 7
So we only have bus connection on trains when they're airport connections and Select Bus Service, eh? My mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, only special buses like that in the service articles. Ordinary buses are only mentioned in the station articles. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Dark gray
Do you mean this statement is anything more than a comment to this specific template? Vcohen (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to add that several other places too. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Station Success Conversions
I see you changed the station succession boxes in some of the stations on the BMT Jamaica Line and BMT Myrtle Avenue Line to remove the confusing north/south problems. Do you plan on doing this for every other station article we have? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, because north and south adequately describe the rest of the system. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Levels near 63rd Street
Is this correct? If both tracks go to the upper level of the tunnel, the line becomes one-level, doesn't it? The track map shows the tracks on the same level.
I don't want to edit the article before I ask you. Vcohen (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- What I was trying to say there, is that heading east from Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street, the two levels become two side-by-side tracks of the IND 63rd Street Line on the upper level of the two-level four-track 63rd Street Tunnel. I've re-worked it some more. Thanks for the heads-up. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sincere Apologies...
Thank you for the comments...I am venturing into new horizons for the first time and following the suggested path...No doubt there is a learning curve to all that we do...I guess there are bumps along the way as we learn.
"Oh what a tangled "web" we have woven...
Take Care 68.148.74.6 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for your apology. Here is a great tutorial for you, about the basics of Wikipedia. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
iBook / edited text
You edited my text concerning the reliability of the Clamshell iBook compared to follow up iBook and PowerBook computers. (remove fluff not supported by rev) The reference article (macintouch report, More than 10,000 laptops were logged, along with many thousands of comments.) stated: "The single most reliable Apple laptop in our survey is the original Blueberry, Tangerine and Graphite series iBook, with a low 8-11% repair percentage." I just replicated this statement. Please read carefully before editing....Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldohreule (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You left out the very important "in our survey." Regardless, it's not WP:NPOV to say "the single most reliable Apple laptop." There have been a lot of Mac laptops, and that ref doesn't support the Clamshell iBook being the most reliable of the entire lineup. The report only includes a small subset of Mac laptops. That's why I changed it to more neutral language. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
To be precise: I wrote "Compared to follow-up iBook and PowerBook notebook computers, the Clamshell iBook proved to be the single most reliable Apple laptop." The macintouch report dealt not with a small subset, but 41 Apple notebook models sold over seven and a half years and was the most comprehensive report at that time. We know that in 2006 when the macintouch report was published the new Intel MacBook and MacBook Pro models came out - and the iBook and PowerBook line ended. I didn't compare the Clamshell reliability to MacBook and MacBook pro. It seems that you wish to gloss over the facts.Waldohreule (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Episode references
It is pretty much a common practice that a reference can be removed for an episode after the episode has aired. WP:VERIFIABILITY does need to apply in this case, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does. If you want to challenge this practice of removing references, bring it up in Template talk:Episode list. QuasyBoy 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to re-read WP:VERIFIABILITY. As a core policy of Wikipedia, it states that everything on Wikipedia needs to be written about somewhere else first. What is written here can be verified from the source material. By removing a source, you are allowing the individual episodes to become unsourced. Wikipedia allows any unsourced information to be removed at anytime. However, there is never any reason to remove properly sourced information. Even if the source goes dead, it still shouldn't be removed unless a new source replaces it.
- I am not challenging the fact that those episodes are wrong, I am challenging the fact that they are properly sourced and you are making them unsourced. Also, I'm not asking if the sky is blue; Everybody knows that. I'm asking about something specific. Therefore, it needs proper sourcing.
- On last thing, by removing a source, you are not improving the encyclopedia. You are effectively undoing your earlier work. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said if you feel that way about verifiability at all costs concerning episode titles, start a discussion on it on Template talk:Episode list. I am just doing what has been down for on Wikipedia concerning episode lists for a while now. The information is not being pulled from thin air concerning the episode titles, I pay close attention to the article as it is to know what is accurate information. You seem to only be paying attention to the latter episodes concerning the references, reference all the episodes then, not just the latter ones if that is the case. There is such a thing as over-citing, See: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Over-citing. QuasyBoy 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I saw your comment on User Talk:HJ Mitchell's page. If you want my opinion, QuasyBoy is right. An episode that has aired, doesn't need a source as it is at that time obvious what the episode is about and what information can be obtained from it.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are right. The whole thing is unsourced. Why? All I see are sources to the viewership. Can you source the rest of the article? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, any non-obvious information would need a source. Since aired episodes are considered obvious information, a source isn't really needed. Anything new would generally need one though.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious to who? How can I verify it? There are no sources for the episodes at all, only to the viewership. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- To anybody that follows the show. Anything that has aired can be considered an obvious source because it's probably what people go to as their first source. To source an aired episode is like sourcing the fact the Sky is blue. Anybody can look up and see for themselves that it is blue and doesn't need to be referenced. It's the same with aired episodes.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a primary source for anything. I don't know why you would even think of using it like that. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Based on Acps110's other edits, he/she is not familiar with other episode lists on this site. In many other episode lists a reference is not forever attached to the episode title. Acps110 can't seem to understand that. One again citing every episode means Over-citing. QuasyBoy 06:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a primary source for anything. I don't know why you would even think of using it like that. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- To anybody that follows the show. Anything that has aired can be considered an obvious source because it's probably what people go to as their first source. To source an aired episode is like sourcing the fact the Sky is blue. Anybody can look up and see for themselves that it is blue and doesn't need to be referenced. It's the same with aired episodes.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious to who? How can I verify it? There are no sources for the episodes at all, only to the viewership. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, any non-obvious information would need a source. Since aired episodes are considered obvious information, a source isn't really needed. Anything new would generally need one though.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said if you feel that way about verifiability at all costs concerning episode titles, start a discussion on it on Template talk:Episode list. I am just doing what has been down for on Wikipedia concerning episode lists for a while now. The information is not being pulled from thin air concerning the episode titles, I pay close attention to the article as it is to know what is accurate information. You seem to only be paying attention to the latter episodes concerning the references, reference all the episodes then, not just the latter ones if that is the case. There is such a thing as over-citing, See: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Over-citing. QuasyBoy 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Station structure
Hi. Concurrently with our discussions on station layouts and on infobox programming, I would like to ask you about station structures. It's the same question that I tried to ask here and here.
All underground stations have their Structure parameter in infoboxes filled in with one value: Underground. This solution isn't correct, because the word underground only means that a station is below the ground. These stations have different structures, and I want to reflect this fact.
In Russia, where I lived, it's common to classify underground stations approximately this way:
I see some on these types in the NYCS too:
However, I couldn't find the full list of NYCS stations along with their types. Could you provide me with it? Vcohen (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- No such list of station types exists. Most are shallow column stations, with fewer deep column stations, and fewest single-vault stations. I can't think of any pylon stations. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you say. Anyway, how can I find out which stations are (structurally) deep? Vcohen (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, could you help me here? Vcohen (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can find out which are structurally deep other than visiting each one. Of course, that would be WP:OR which we can't use. Off the top of my head, those that are structurally deep are near river crossings as well as in upper Manhattan on the west side. Those come to mind, and surely there are some New York Times articles about those stations being built. The stations that are currently under construction would be the easiest to source, and they are all similar designs. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- When we say that station X has N tracks and M platforms (and don't refer to any source), it isn't considered WP:OR. I hope there exist obvious signs that allow us to say that station X belongs to type Y. I have only two problems.
- My first problem is that the classification used in the USA may differ from the one I've described. For instance, this is a deep station, no doubt, as it has a rounded ceiling. However, this is a station below it, and it must be deep too, but it has no any sign of a deep station that I know.
- My second problem is that I cannot come from Israel and visit each station. Vcohen (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I have the same problem of not being in NYC.
- About your question on the Lexington Avenue / 59th Street complex... There is a cut-away drawing somewhere (that I will try to find) that shows the structure from street level down. The Lex local is a standard Dual Contracts shallow column station and the BMT station is a deep column station. The Lex express level was built in the 1950s around the existing express tracks, so that would make it a deep column station. It is at a lower level from the BMT station. So the drawing shows the Lex local closest to the surface, then the BMT station at a right angle to that at a lower level, and finally the Lex express deeper still. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's fine, but this lower level has neither rounded ceiling nor rounded walls. This is the ceiling above the tracks, it's flat too. Maybe there are some structural features that cause the station not to collapse, but I totally cannot classify it. Have you any solution? Vcohen (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can find out which are structurally deep other than visiting each one. Of course, that would be WP:OR which we can't use. Off the top of my head, those that are structurally deep are near river crossings as well as in upper Manhattan on the west side. Those come to mind, and surely there are some New York Times articles about those stations being built. The stations that are currently under construction would be the easiest to source, and they are all similar designs. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the discussion over at WT:NYCPT has gone stale, I've been bold and added the switch to Infobox NYCS for structure type. I've checked and fixed all of the above-ground stations too. My suggestion of a solution for you is to use the WP:BRD process. Make a bold edit and see if someone reverts.
For 59th Street lower level, I would classify it as a deep column station because of the simple fact that it is not close to the surface. Additionally, it was built under an existing station. I think the reason that any column station doesn't collapse (deep or shallow) is the sheer number of columns, and their close spacing that distributes the weight above. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits. As of now, I still have no data to proceed with. IMHO, if we want to find somebody that knows the answer we have to ask explicitly. I will ask this question on the project talk page. The WP:BRD process won't yield the desired result. Somebody will revert my changes as unsourced, and he will be right.
- What for 59th street, I see two alternatives, and I want to know which of them is correct. The first one is that this station has something that we don't see in the photos. Before the lower level was built, the tracks were in a tunnel. When they were building the level, they could use a part of the tunnel construction. For example, the flat ceiling that we have seen may be a false ceiling hiding the real rounded ceiling of the tunnel. In this case the structure of the lower level is "deep column". The second alternative is that both levels have the same structure that works at any depth. In this case my "Russian" classification is not suitable here and we have to find another classification that does reflect the reality. Vcohen (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Some recent edits I'd like to question
For the station articles on the IRT White Plains Road Line, I noticed you changed the lead paragraph saying what train serves the station and when from "the 5 at all times except late nights and rush hours in the peak direction" to "the 5 daily except rush hours in the peak direction." You forgot to put "late nights" between "except" and "rush hours" in that sentence because the 5 does not serve those stations during late night hours unless of course late nights is not included in your use of the word "daily." If that is the case, however, you have to change that on all other station articles that have a certain service serving them at all times except late nights (i.e. on the C, R, and 3 trains). I know subway service is low and not used a lot during late night hours, it is no different than any other time of the day.
Also, I noticed you edited the templates related to the M train running on the IND Queens Boulevard Line from "weekdays at all hours except late nights" to "weekdays until 11 p.m." Maybe we should change that to "weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." because if a certain train stops serving a station at a certain time of the day, there has to be a certain time when it starts serving it daily. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I didn't forget to explicitly exclude late nights, because daily already excludes late nights. The day according to the MTA lasts from approximately 6 AM (at the beginning of the morning rush) until midnight. Weekend days begin later (8 AM on Sat, 9-10 AM on Sun) but for the purpose of this discussion, weekend days are just like any other day. I added "at all times" to the Flushing south template because weekdays doesn't include late nights either.
- "All times" vs. "daily" vs. "weekdays"
- Since the subway runs 24 hrs a day, most of the service wording is biased in that direction. The structure of the services shows a decreasing amount of service from that... an all times except late night service runs every day from 6 AM to midnight. Weekdays would be even less service... Mon to Fri, 6 AM to midnight. The point I'm stressing is that neither daily or weekdays includes midnight to 6 AM.
- 5 trains have the most number of structured degradations of service in the system. Rush hours and mid-days it runs the full length. The rest of the day it short turns at Bowling Green. Late nights, its route is further shortened to a shuttle in the Bronx. Or looked at another way, after the PM rush hour it is demoted from Flatbush Ave back to Bowling Green, and can't get to Brooklyn. After midnight it is demoted again, this time from Bowling Green back to East 180th St and can't even get out of the Bronx. So "daily except rush hours in the peak direction," means only that, and expands to "daily (Monday to Sunday) from 6 AM to midnight you can expect a 5 train to stop, except if it is a Monday to Friday rush hour, inbound in the AM or outbound in the PM."
- I replaced "all times" with "daily" because there were too many exceptions for "all times" to really mean all times. If a service doesn't run late nights, it seems strange to me to say it runs all times, unless that is the only exclusion. I am fine with "all times except late nights," because that is the same thing as "daily from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." or "daily until 11 p.m."
- I shortened the wording for the M train (and other templates) because there is a limited amount of horizontal space in the infoboxes. I just took the same wording from B service to keep things from strangely wrapping to the next line.
- (As an aside, I wish NYCS would do away with weekend service and run mid-day service from 8 AM to 11 PM on weekends instead. That would simplify things a lot. 5 to Flatbush Ave, B to 145th Street, M to Forest Hills and Q to Astoria.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
LIRR West Brighton Beach and Culver Line
If the Culver Line was never the West Brighton Beach Division of the Long Island Rail Road, then what's this? ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the Culver Line (surface) route. According to that article, the LIRR stopped using the Culver line after 1899. The elevated line didn't open until 20 years later in 1919. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
En dashes
I reverted your reversion of the move of Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). I hadn't totally sorted out the MOS vote on this from last summer, but it appears that it was decided that a space was no longer necessary around an en dash between elements that had spaces themselves, unless those spaced elements were the ends of a range (i.e., dates). You'll see that the current language at MOS:ENDASH reflects this.
Your move-log message referred to the NYCPT' project's naming convention. This says nothing about spacing and cannot trump policy (i.e., the MOS, to which it even refers) without a specific, explicit exception in policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)