Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Unidentified locations

[[:|WT:NYCPT
WT:NYCS]]

Archives

Happy new year!

Happy new year to all at the project! Another year's work has paid off. Well done, men, well done! —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 05:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a question, though; When is anybody going to archive more of the old messages? ----DanTD (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do another archive within the hour. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also working on refactoring our archives, which is something I've been meaning to do for a while. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. :) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trulystand700's images

I'm reposting this, since the question is still open:

I have nominated Image:8 (New York City Subway service).gif, Image:IRT Third Avenue Line.jpg, and Image:Third Avenue El.gif for deletion; their deletion notices can be found here.

In the same vein, what shall we do about the other MTA images Trulystand700 has uploaded? These include:

Are we ever going to actually use these images in the corresponding articles? If not, I could probably delete them without going through the WP:IFD process. Orphaning is a legitimate reason for deletion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain their copyright claim is bogus (as usual for this sock-drawer). The linked permission URL looks specific for news-release items, there's no evidence that other parts of the MTA hierarchy are intended for redistribution, and the other sections do have affirmative statements prohibitting such use (i.e., "Please note that, except solely for your own personal and non-commercial use, no part of these maps may be copied or used without the prior written permission of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority."). DMacks (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "generic" MTA notice suggests that everything is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. The notice used by TS700 to claim free license does not in fact state as such, but merely emphasizes the need to attach the copyright notice. The 2nd Ave. station is probably deletable: it's the inside of a subway station that looks very generic. The Fulton Street station pic looks somewhat original, however, and may be fair use, just as copyrighted artists' impressions of the completed Freedom Tower and International Commerce Centre are acceptable. The self-made images are too low quality for use here.

I want to point out, though, that despite all the trouble everyone has faced, the current situation is much more preferable than the previous two months of Whac-A-Mole, and it's clear that TS700 is actually trying to learn more about how exactly the copyright policies here work. That he would try to use that MTA page as justification is understandable given his eagerness to contribute to those articles and previous frustration, and I'm inclined to try to not bite off his head just yet. Kelvinc (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the only things I see worth deleting are Image:8 (New York City Subway service).gif and Image:IRT Third Avenue Line.jpg. The rest seem fine to me. I say we have to give Trulystand700 some credit for his articles on abanodoned LIRR stations, and some of the images he had there. Too bad I didn't get to see the one of Image:Image-Station Of The Second Aveune Subway.jpg‎, or at least I don't remember seeing it. ----DanTD (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copy of one of these: [1]. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTA (New York) bus and subway fares

AEMoreira042281 has developed this new template, and transcluded it in all of the articles that mention transit fares (a total of 7 articles).

While I recognize this was intended as a good faith attempt to simplify and streamline the articles, I am not sure we should have gone this route. Generally, substantive content goes in the main namespace. Templates are used for "boilerplate" text, navigation, and formatting. As noted at WP:TMP:

Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.

I think the correct way to handle it would be to put the desired content directly into the main article (New York City transit fares), and link to that article from all of the other relevant articles. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. In addition to the misuse of the Template namespace, I have aesthetic issues with the template—to put it bluntly, the table is a tremendous eyesore. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's actual content, and so deserves to be in some article/articles somewhere. But the content ranges from a little to waaaay too detailed for my taste for many of the articles where it's transcluded. The New York City transit fares article seems like a good place for this kind of specific and detailed info, and other articles can link that one, and mention any especially relevant parts of the fare structure. I spent a while trying to clean up the table, but the notes section still bothers me—it's actual content that could sometimes be expanded (inter-line stations could be listed,etc), not just a parenthetical comment about a table entry. DMacks (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even need a table? This is Wikipedia, we can use as much space as we want to lucidly and clearly explain the fare structures. It's not as if we have to shove this all into a poster or something, destined to inform tourists from the walls of subway stations. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the use of the template in the articles where it was added. Within those articles, I created a link to the main article, New York City transit fares. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bus connections and shourt route information

this is what I started to add on subway stition description of NYC like here

GK tramrunner

(talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have this sort of information before? Wasn't it all removed? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had something to do with templates or something. They're still here, though. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminals in service infoboxes

At pages like F (New York City Subway service), the infobox contains the terminal names, along with the bullets for services at each terminal. Somehow, the service bullets strike me as very annoying. I feel that they are visually noisy and draw attention away from the main bullet, while failing to add any information to the article. (Transfer info is already in the table of stations at the end of the article.) In this case, they certainly do not add information about the F. What is important here is that Coney Island is a terminal for the F; thus, it is listed in the infobox. The fact that the D, N, and Q terminate there also is not of particular important for the F, but rather for the station itself; this is why that information is contained in the table of stations and in the Coney Island article. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted the changes for different reasons: I went to E and it had not been changed to match the redo of template:infobox NYCS service; less than half had, and the rest were missing all but the top line. I also agree with your reasoning. --NE2 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LarryV and NE2. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock used by New York City Subway services

User:The Legendary Ranger has updated most of the NYCS service articles to indicate the type of rolling stock used. Recently, NE2 removed these statements, since there was no source for the information, but User:The Legendary Ranger restored them.

While User:The Legendary Ranger's statements about rolling stock appear to be correct (based on my own experience), I am not aware of any verifiable source for this information. Unless there is a source, I agree with User:NE2 that the information needs to be removed. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Marc and NE2, I think that the rolling stock should be removed as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even though it seems to be truth, it has to be verified, and I haven't found anything that is reliable enough for the rolling stock info to be added. Of course, we can always put the info in and add {{fact}} afterwards so we can come back to it later. But we don't wan't to make a habit of that. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, there might be a few sources here and there (mostly newspaper articles), but they may become dated, since car assignments can change rapidly. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flushing Line construction

If you've haven't heard, the Flushing Line will be undergoing major construction for about two months. Maybe this should be included somehow, since it is all over the media. Then again, I'm not sure, since it is a temporary change, even if it lasts a good while. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]