Revision as of 18:03, 18 May 2012 editVcohen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,093 edits →New template← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:52, 20 May 2012 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 45d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 15.Next edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=45|image=Crystal Clear app file-manager.png}} | {{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=45|image=Crystal Clear app file-manager.png}} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Infobox NYCS == | |||
I need some programming help with three things in {{tl|Infobox NYCS}}. | |||
I recently added the trunk line colors to the line parameter. Can someone cleanup my hard coding to allow the trunk line colors to be added any time they are encountered? I had to add the hard coding to accommodate places where a trunk line and non-trunk line serve the same station, such as ], ], etc. | |||
Also, I removed the next north and south station parameters from several stations (example, ]) where they duplicated the next north and south ADA stations. There is a switch that adds a horizontal rule if next north or south ADA is present, to separate them from the next north or south stations. Can anyone fix this switch to add the horizontal rule if both north and south and north ADA and south ADA are present, but remove it if only north and south ADA are present? | |||
DanTD recently embedded National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) info into infoboxes. However, it embeds in the wrong place, it splits up the Station succession and Station service legend, see ]. Can the station service legend be moved out of the footer and then move the NRHP info down below it? So, the order will be, Station succession, Station service legend, then NRHP? (Please also verify that the change works with the "type=complex" option.) ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Additionally, ] posted these questions to the template's talk page, which have somehow been missed... | |||
{|- | |||
|width="10%" bgcolor="#F8EABA" style="border:1px solid #8F91A1;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |||
My knowledge is not enough, so I don't want to edit this template myself, but I want to make some improvements: | |||
1. Replace | |||
<pre> | |||
| data11 = {{{structure|}}} | |||
</pre> | |||
with | |||
<pre> | |||
| data11 = {{ #switch: {{{structure|}}} | |||
| Open-cut = ] | |||
| Elevated = ] | |||
| Embankment = ] | |||
| Shallow column = ] | |||
| Single-vault = ] | |||
| #default = {{{structure|}}} | |||
}} | |||
</pre> | |||
2. Add a support for a new parameter called 'note'. I want to use it ] and ] to say: | |||
<pre> | |||
| note = The MTA defines this platform set as two separate stations | |||
</pre> | |||
Is there anybody going to perform this work? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
3 & 4. Two new parameters called 'layout' and 'map', similar to the 'image' parameter. I am preparing some graphic files to show station layouts (tracks and platforms) and their locations relative to the whole system, and I want them at the bottom of the infobox. ] (]) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
<small>I've added two options to the 'structure' list: ']' and ']'. These are the two most common types of underground stations in the NYCS, both having articles here, whereas just 'Underground' is not a structure at all. ] (]) 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
I've added the 'map' parameter. ] (]) 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
|} | |||
=== Discussion === | |||
* I '''support''' adding the proposed switch to the structure section, with several modifications. | |||
** <nowiki>| Shallow column = Underground<br>]</nowiki> | |||
** <nowiki>| Deep column = Underground<br>]</nowiki> | |||
** <nowiki>| Single-vault = Underground<br>]</nowiki> | |||
* I '''oppose''' question two. That is trivial ] and shouldn't be included in an infobox. | |||
* I '''support''' adding a "schematic" parameter to be used for a schematic layout of the station. A picture is worth a thousand words, and most station articles already include a textual description of the layout. | |||
* I '''oppose''' a map added to each infobox for its relative position in the system, due to the large size of the system and the small size of a thumbnail map in an infobox. A thumbnail would be unreadable. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Somebody else put those NRHP parameters there before me, but I forgot who did them. ----] (]) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I like them better embeded into the infobox instead of a separate infobox. I would just like the Station succession and station service legend together. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, I'm glad. I'd like to see if and how we can merge the infoboxes of ] and ]. Speaking of ] stations, we should populate the individual commons category images of those stations, along with a few others, but that's a discussion for another thread. ----] (]) 20:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
I don't particularly like any of the proposed additions. That's too much detail in the structure section; infoboxes are supposed to be complimentary to, not supplant the article. The second idea is quite trivial. The maps are goin to be illegible, because of the size of the system. The schematic idea is like the structure parameter, too much detail for an infobox. If a schematic is warranted, it should be in the article body, ''not'' the infobox. And frankly, the articles that need them the most (station complexes) are the ones where it's going to be the worst off. I'm also down on the color blocks for the trunk lines in the infobox. As plain color blocks are already used for the services, it's only got potential to confuse unfamiliar readers. While the colors may be assigned to a service based on their trunk line, the trunk lines don't actually have colors. ] (]) 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I don't see the color boxes attached to the trunk lines as a confusion for new readers, I see it as being consistent. Even though the lines don't have colors, the trunk line colors have been the de facto standard since 1979. The service bullets are generated from the trunk line colors. Unfortunately, NYCS does not effectively enforce this consistently. The new FASTRACK service map for the Sixth Ave line is a mess, displaying the re-routed D and F trains in the wrong color as well as the Brooklyn-side of the Split-D terminating at Whitehall St also in the wrong color. The trains don't have the capability to change colors either. If they changed the map with the re-routes, they could say more simply, no orange D and F service, blue D and F service replaces; Connect with yellow D at Jay Street – Metrotech for continued service to Brooklyn. With NYCS not enforcing using their own color system, they are creating more confusion in the process. Misplaced Pages exists to document things as they are, de facto or otherwise, thus the addition of trunk line colors. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 15:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks to ] for copying my questions. I would like to make some explanations. | |||
:* It took me a pretty long time to find out why the number of stations mentioned in almost every article is 468 while simple counting gives only 466. The idea is to have mercy on the reader and mark the two stations that have to be counted twice. | |||
:* My images will be published and discussed on my user page, they are not ready right now, but I want to demonstrate what it is. I don't think that they are unreadable. | |||
:{| | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
|} | |||
:] (]) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Ah. Yeah, I think those maps are too schematic and lack enough context to be useful to someone not already familiar with the system. And, again, I think trying to put every detail of a station in the infobox is a bad idea. ] (]) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Now you can see them in color. ] (]) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Some more context can be added by showing borough boundaries and/or something else (tell me what). ] (]) 23:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::So does this mean every station article is going to get a map now? I can live with just the station complexes maybe, but if anything it would make more sense if the lines and services had maps (Yes, I know that there are plenty of them that already do). And what about the lines that don't have color bars yet, like the ]? ----] (]) 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Maps for lines and services are planned too and will be discussed later. I don't want to talk about them in context of {{tl|Infobox NYCS}}. Meanwhile you can see them ] and ] (it isn't the final version). | |||
:::::] is shown in white. I show in white each line (or part of it) that has services of several different colors. ] (]) 12:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Really? Because when I look at the lead infoboxes for ], ], and what not, the only color bars I see are for the ](Shouldn't ] be in yellow?). With ] at least you also have the addition of the ] color bar. ----] (]) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Dan, the Astoria and Queens Boulevard lines are not trunk lines. In your example, the Flushing and Crosstown lines are trunk lines. That's where the colors come from. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 15:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Do you see anything wrong on my maps? The colors are for lines, not for stations. The yellow line running northwards from Queensboro Plaza is Astoria Line, the lime green line running southwards from it (yes, I know that they are not connected) is Crosstown Line. ] (]) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I understand why you put the colors there, and they seem okay to me. ----] (]) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{idea}} I can make a link from this map to a real full map (either or ) rather than to the zoom of the same image. ] (]) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Station structure == | == Station structure == | ||
Line 143: | Line 62: | ||
* (at 3:00) it looks rounded | * (at 3:00) it looks rounded | ||
It's most likely that I have to find all stations on Youtube... ] (]) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | It's most likely that I have to find all stations on Youtube... ] (]) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
== R46 and Close Paraphrasing == | |||
I don't have the time to rewrite the section myself like I'd like to, but ] for the Rockwell / Pullman Standard fiasco tends to be mostly words just reorganized and changed in places from NYCSubway.org's 70s page. IF someone might be able to do me a favor and rewrite what's there or expand it, I'd be appreciative. <span style="font-family:Poor Richard;color:red;">Mitch<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:black;"><big>'''32'''</big><sup>(] ])</sup></span></span> 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Missing info == | == Missing info == |
Revision as of 08:52, 20 May 2012
ShortcutsThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Station structure
Ladies & gentlemen,
I'm trying to understand the subject of station structure, in order to fix the Structure field in the infoboxes of the underground stations. The current value, Underground, only means that a station is below the ground level, it doesn't reflect its real structure. The question is what are the options of an underground station structure.
In Russia, where I lived until 20 years ago, the common classification of underground stations goes approximately like this:
I know that in the NYCS there are single-vault stations and no pylon stations and "horizontal elevators". The problem is to distinguish between shallow and deep column stations. I see column stations without any visible difference, located at different depths. Here are some examples of deep stations:
- Single-vault station
- ?
- ?
- ?
These stations are deep, but they don't belong to the deep column station type (partly because the first deep column station in the world was built in 1938 in Moscow and some of the discussed stations opened much before 1938). On the talk pages of the Shallow column station and Deep column station articles somebody wrote 5 years ago that the two articles were translation from Russian (I think so too) and it would be better to merge them together to make them less Russian-centered. I understand that there exists a just column station type, but I can't find any source that describes it.
So, what type are these stations? Vcohen (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- This classification system is little discussed in connection with NYC. Except for the single vault example, I think these stations are shallow; ie with floors less than about 15m (50ft) below grade and above water level, in tunnels built by cut and cover or similar methods. Deep stations in bored tunnels seldom present their arched ceilings to the photographer, though as in this Brooklyn example, a deep station with columns typically shows the curved wall that resists the pressure of ground water. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I have two questions.
- The first of these three examples is the lower level of 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line). It's situated below a mezzanine and two other stations, one of them being obviously deep-bored (see the image). It can't be built by cut and cover.
- If, as you say, "deep stations in bored tunnels seldom present their arched ceilings to the photographer", how can I identify deep stations? Is there any list of them? Vcohen (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I have two questions.
- Sorry for my inattention; last night's Wikimedia New York meeting was the last event of a busy week and the new less eventful week should allow me to keep up with correspondence. I don't know of a list of station depths and haven't studied the subway system systematically. I have merely used about half the underground stations including most of the Manhattan ones in the past fifty years and sometimes am able to recall climbing the stairs, thus indicating depth.
- Yes, the BMT tunnel is deep but the question of the depth of the IRT platforms above it is one that escapes my fading memory. A week and a half ago, victim of a flat tire in southeastern Yonkers, I carried my bicycle from the E86th Street southbound platform to the street, and vaguely recall that the ceiling was not many yards below the street but that's my nearest possibly relevant datum for a line I seldom use.
- As for the arched ceiling above the BMT platform, I hazard a guess that it was made to carry the heavy soil load above it. Presumably the arch over the tracks would be very prominent, if it were exposed, but I don't remember seeing it when changing trains there, last year. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll think about measuring depths by carrying bicycles on stairs... Vcohen (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are two images of the ceiling above the tracks on the lower level of 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line):
It's most likely that I have to find all stations on Youtube... Vcohen (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Missing info
Re Template talk:NYCS rolling stock#Truck centers, What is the distance between truck pivot centers? Peter Horn User talk 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The datasheets for every model are at http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/currentfleet.html and http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/retiredfleet.html. Acps110 02:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Update naming convention?
(Moved discussion from subpage that no one watches) Acps110 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The "naming convention" section currently reads "For any name that requires an en dash, if there is a space between one or both of the elements, the en dash is spaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline." This was once what the MOS called for; however, it (MOS:DASH) was changed in mid-2011 to mandate that en dashes that are part of compounds should be unspaced. When the MOS conflicts with any local project guidelines, the former takes precedence, so this page should be changed to reflect the change in the MOS. Otherwise, it's offering guidance that's misleading at best and incorrect at worst. – TMF 23:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just came here to say the same thing, and saw you beat me to it. I'll update it since nobody has objected. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it's decided to perform this change, it will be a good chance to perform another one. The naming convention prescribes to use a slash in names of complexes only, but we have at least 4 single stations with a slash. Vcohen (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Otherwise, the Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) article needs to get back its spaces. Vcohen (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- So does that mean Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) will be renamed Atlantic Avenue / Pacific Street (New York City Subway), just because it's a complex, even though the former is the proper name and not the latter? ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO, the current naming convention needs a more thorough development. I don't suggest to do it now. The 4 stations I mentioned are the simplest cases that can be easily fixed. Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- So does that mean Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) will be renamed Atlantic Avenue / Pacific Street (New York City Subway), just because it's a complex, even though the former is the proper name and not the latter? ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall / Chambers Street (New York City Subway) needs its spaces back, in case that we decide to rollback the changes. Vcohen (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I see, Barclays Center has been renamed with the spaces, so this is probably the chosen way. Vcohen (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
While updating links to Barclays Center...
When a link describes a historical subject, should I still change it to Barclays Center or use a redirect? Also, what should I do with its displayed text, after the pipe, should I change it to Barclays Center or leave as is? Vcohen (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Update the link to the new title, but leave the piped text as the old title. For example, ]. A similar situation is that V trains formerly terminated at Lower East Side – Second Avenue but the station is now named Second Avenue. Acps110 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
New template
I have created a new template, {{NYCS const}}.
It's intended to concentrate useful pieces of text in one place and update them only once when the reality changes. As of now, it supports two types of data, defined by the first parameter.
1. If the first parameter is color, the template returns the name of the corresponding color, as it appears in trunk line tables here and here, with a link to an article about the color. The returned color name will be typically used in articles about lines and services, where a trunk line color is mentioned. The second parameter recognizes the same ways of defining a color as the {{NYCS color}} template does.
- {{NYCS const|color|orange}} returns orange
- {{NYCS const|color|yellow}} returns yellow
2. If the first parameter is number, the template returns the number of stations. Meanwhile, there are only two options. The numbers of lines and services can be added.
- {{NYCS const|number|total}} returns 472
- {{NYCS const|number|intl}} returns 423
3. I can move to the template other pieces of text that are used more than once, such as the trunk line table or the sentence Lines with colors next to them are trunk lines; trunk lines determine the color of New York City Subway service bullets, except shuttles which are dark gray (I didn't take it because its occurrences slightly differ from each other).
I am going to apply this template. Is it OK? Vcohen (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. In line infoboxes, where the statement sounds like The services have been colored xxx since 1979, I leave the original color name, without the template. I suppose that only the general color has existed since 1979, such as blue or red, while the exact hue, such as vivid blue or tomato red, has been added later. Vcohen (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Done (in the first approximation). Vcohen (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- Redirect-Class New York City pages
- NA-importance New York City pages
- WikiProject New York City articles
- Redirect-Class New York (state) pages
- NA-importance New York (state) pages
- Redirect-Class rail transport pages
- NA-importance rail transport pages
- Redirect-Class Rapid transit pages
- NA-importance Rapid transit pages
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- Redirect-Class bus transport pages
- NA-importance bus transport pages
- WikiProject Buses articles