Talk:IRT Eastern Parkway Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Needs more information?

Does anyone think this article is too short? Besides, I think that the IRT Eastern Parkway Line and the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line should be merged into a new page, called The Brooklyn IRT. Or a disambiguation page should be created with this title. Need opinions!!! --imdanumber1 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the articles for some of the other lines (e.g., IRT Lexington Avenue Line or IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line), you get an idea of what a more robust "line" article should look like. This one's clearly a stub, and needs more work.

I do think that there's considerable duplication between the IRT line articles, and the IRT service articles. The level of duplication will increase as articles like this one are expanded. Except for the 7, all of the IRT lines are inter-connected. If you want each article to be self-contained, all of the service changes need to be explained in multiple places.

I don't have the time to work on this myself, but I think the correct structure is to have one article that describes in one place the construction history and service history of all the IRT lines and services, except the 7. It is, frankly, one inter-connected story, and fragmenting it is simply confusing. (For an example, see 1 (New York City Subway service)#Service history.)

The individual "line" and "service" articles still have a role, but a lot of the historical information should be removed from them. Some historical information is appropriate in the individual line & service articles, where it clearly applies in only one place. For instance, the IRT Dyre Avenue Line has a history that is fairly independent of the rest of the IRT. And history of the 1/9 service pattern should remain in the 1 article. Marc Shepherd 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions, but I am still a little unsure as what to do. For all who thinks that the IRT Eastern Parkway Line and the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line should be merged into a new page called The Brooklyn IRT, type in Support along with a reason. For all who think it should stay the way it is, say Oppose along with a reason. For thse who think it doesn't matter what happens, say Neutral along with a reason. Don't forget to place your signature with a timestamp. I will take care of the moves and everything, but feel free to help. Your vote counts. Majority wins. Thank you! --imdanumber1 17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Besides, the history won't dramatically be affected as all of the stations were added at the same time, mostly south of Atlantic Avenue. Maybe the move won't be as effective, but is up to you.

Oppose. There is a lot of overlap in the IRT line/service articles, but this is a piecemeal solution that doesn't address the actual problem. All of the physically separate NYCS lines have separate articles, so why merge in just this one case? There is one Archer Avenue Line article, but the BMT and IND sections are literally on top of each other. I believe there is consensus for merging the two 63rd Street Line articles for a similar reason, although it hasn't yet happened. Any other proposal to merge should be part of a holistic solution that addresses the reduncancy problem in a more general way. Marc Shepherd 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Marc: If you click here you might understand what I am talking about. The link redirects to The nycsubway.org page about the Brooklyn IRT, with the Nostrand Avenue Line considered a branch as well as the rest of the Eastern Parkway Line west of Franklin Avenue (called the New Lots Branch). I also know about what you stated above. --imdanumber1 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of how nycsubway.org did it. But there are many things that site describes differently than this one does, and nycsubway.org isn't always consistent. Marc Shepherd 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you are right about that. So the pages will remain untouched. --imdanumber1 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)