Talk:Second Avenue Subway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSecond Avenue Subway has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
March 31, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 26, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that New York City has been working on the Second Avenue Subway project since 1919?
Current status: Good article

Time to Split (2)[edit]

The article continues to grow - I don't have the word count tool, but it's up about 20% since January, or about 20k words. I suggest breaking out the construction into a separate article - that will be the most stable unless/until they start a new stage. After that, as noted above, a separate history article makes sense. I do not have time to start now, but if no one else does, can jump in later this season. Jd2718 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The article is only 17,687 words, so I don't know where you got the 20k figure from. In any case, I oppose a full split because it's unnecessary, but maybe the historic-proposals section could be split, with some context about the current-construction section. I say "maybe" because I am planning to make this a good topic, with the main SAS article being a good or featured article, and I'd rather not have a page split lead to this article's degradation or even demotion. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have created a draft in my sandbox. epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The split has now been carried out. The article is now at History of the Second Avenue Subway. epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What's the official source...[edit]

for the Second Avenue Subway being IND? The nycsubway.org link seems to say that it's neither IND nor BMT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically it was never part of the IND since that company was merged with the BMT and IRT in 1951. But it is an IND division line as per its chaining code (seen on the red track-layout signs at the end of each station platform, like the red plaque in the middle of this picture). A former MTA employee provided these codes listing "S" as the chaining code for the Second Avenue Line. It's also in the NYC Trackbook for 2016. One thing I can say for sure is that this is an internal designation only. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding as well, internal only -- so it really shouldn't be listed as such in a document meant for the general public. Or "officially" should be replaced with "internally". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added "internally". I think similar lines, like IND Sixth Avenue Line and IRT Lexington Avenue Line, could also be rephrased to reflect this, but it's an issue that would be better discussed on WT:NYCS. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Second Avenue Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Services[edit]

Why are we not showing all current services for the Second Ave Subway? Cards84664 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, why are you changing a long-standing satus quo without consensus to do so, and edit warring to keep it in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You changed it back without pressing the revert button, and used an abbreviation that has no common meaning, so why wouldn't I? Also, please link me to the long-standing discussion, I have not seen such. Cards84664 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm the user who uploaded File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-QT.svg (although it is not in use on this article, the upload of this image led to the placement of the Q/T infobox images that are there today). It was a result of this discussion on December 18, 2016, when PrecipiceofDuck created File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-future.svg to signify the N, Q, and future T bullets. He had said, I thought the N/Q bullets and the T bullets should be displayed separately since the T is only a proposed service. I think it was changed to show only Q/T at a later date. Personally, I think it should be N, Q, R, and T, like the IRT New Lots Line article with the 2, 3, 4, and 5, even though only the 3 stops there during the daytime.
"LGV" means "last good version", by the way. It is listed in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm the one that started that discussion and which was followed up by discussion at the wikiproject talk page (though I don't have a specific archive link handy). I'll say now what I said then: a handful of oddball variant runs that aren't even deemed significant enough to show on station signage shouldn't be in the infobox, as they're relatively minor, could confuse readers, and, because of how our infoboxes are formatted, essentially create ficticious signage. Including the R at the very top of the article because of one short-turn run (which doesn't even appear in the current official timetable, btw) is questionable. The half dozen N trains aren't anymore significant. Noting them in the services section is enough (though the bullets there are also questionable; why do we have redundant and frankly purely decorative images there in the first place?) oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
They aren't really decorative. In all of the other subway line articles except for this one, all the services that use the line are listed in the infobox, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time, or a few rush-hour runs only. I would point out the IRT New Lots Line article as an example. On the other hand, this article displays a service that doesn't exist yet (the T) and doesn't display the services that do use the line (the N and R). But I think we can reword the infobox so the image caption also mentions that very few N and R trains stop here. epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, they're decorative in the sense that we already have illustrative bullets at the top of the articles. As for the second part, instead of adding the bullets for a handful of rush hour runs here, we really ought to be taking them out of the other articles for the same reasons as I listed above. Including them rises to the same level of trivial detail as counting rivets on a R38 subway car. Mention them in body text, don't treat them as eqvluivalent to the regular primary services on the line that appear on the map or station signage, as it creates fictitious signage here. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Counting rivets" is funny. I like it. On the other hand, maybe we can remove the service bullets from the line articles' infoboxes if they don't primarily serve the line, since we already do this in the stations' articles. epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
What about dropping the prose and just explaining the services outright? Cards84664 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: What do you think of these? Cards84664 (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I think these would look better as full sentences, or at least sentence fragments (row 2 of this table). Or else we can drop unnecessary details (row 3). epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. Row 3 hands down. Cards84664 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Cards84464's version
Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
Regular service: Q Broadway Express
Limited service: N Broadway Express
One rush hour trip: R Broadway Local
Future service: T Second Avenue Local
IRT New Lots Line
"3" train
Regular service: 3 Seventh Avenue Express
Limited service: 2 Seventh Avenue Express
Limited service: 4 Lexington Avenue Express
Very limited service: 5 Lexington Avenue Express
epicgenius's version
Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
The Q Broadway Express serves the Second Avenue Line at all times.
Limited rush-hour service is provided by the N Broadway Express and the R Broadway Local.
The T Second Avenue Local will serve the line in the future.
IRT New Lots Line
"3" train
The 3 Seventh Avenue Express serves the New Lots Line at all times except late nights.
Limited rush-hour service is provided by the 2 Seventh Avenue Express, 4 Lexington Avenue Express, and 5 Lexington Avenue Express.
The 4 also serves the line during late nights.
Condensed version without detail
Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q.
Limited service is also provided by the N and R.
The T will serve the line in the future.
IRT New Lots Line
"3" train
The New Lots Line is normally served by the 3.
Limited service is also provided by the 2, 4, and 5.

I like the third version too. Enough detail without overwhelming the reader with unimportant factoids, while not giving false impressions of the extent of the services. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One last thing, though: we still need to explain why the colors are there in the infobox. Especially for the Second Avenue Subway, which is technically "turquoise" but obviously the Q is yellow. So which version shall it be? epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q.
Limited service is also provided by the N and R.
The T will serve the full line in the future, and will be colored turquoise since it will use the line through Midtown Manhattan.
Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q.
Limited service is also provided by the N and R.
The T will serve the full line in the future, and will be colored turquoise.

Here's my way to simplify. Cards84664 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Second Avenue Subway
"Q" train
Second Avenue (turquoise) is served by the Q.
Limited service is also provided by the N and R.
The T will serve the full line in the future.

The M train has been running up on the 2nd Avenue line on weekends and will do so nights/weekends during the impending L train shutdown. Is this worth adding to the service description?

The New York Times[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613: @Epicgenius: I just saw your article from The New York Times, It was featured on the front page of Wikipedia's news on Google. I have added the media template to this talk page, due to its mention in the NYT article. Congrats! Cards84664 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it would be out this early. I thought they would wait for the Sunday magazine issue. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: It will be in the Metro section.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks as well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)