Talk:Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
|
[edit] Naming
Like Canal Street, this is not the only Franklin Avenue station, and this station is only named Franklin Avenue. Maybe Franklin Avenue (BMT-IND)? --NE2 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don't do that. It would be better to split the article up. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Our naming should be a slave to the structure, not the other way around. --NE2 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well have you ever been to that station? The Fulton Street station is underground; the Franklin shuttle station is elevated, connected to the underground station by a single long open-air walkway. Hardly an integrated complex. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a good idea to split then. We should probably go through others that we have joined together and consider splitting ones with only a single long passageway. --NE2 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have to take precautions if we decide to split. Besides, me and Marc worked hard on these complexes, which took a lot of time that we'll never get back. I would agree that we shouldn't merge stations that have a physical connection if the name is not found on MTA text itself, unless we can come to a conclusion on what the name could be without the title being ridiculously long, but really, let's not split them. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing in this article that pertains to the complex as a whole; it would be trivial to split it. --NE2 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- They are connected by a mezzanine, thanks to the 1998-1999 renovation; they have the same name, need I say more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
- There's nothing in this article that pertains to the complex as a whole; it would be trivial to split it. --NE2 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have to take precautions if we decide to split. Besides, me and Marc worked hard on these complexes, which took a lot of time that we'll never get back. I would agree that we shouldn't merge stations that have a physical connection if the name is not found on MTA text itself, unless we can come to a conclusion on what the name could be without the title being ridiculously long, but really, let's not split them. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a good idea to split then. We should probably go through others that we have joined together and consider splitting ones with only a single long passageway. --NE2 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well have you ever been to that station? The Fulton Street station is underground; the Franklin shuttle station is elevated, connected to the underground station by a single long open-air walkway. Hardly an integrated complex. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Our naming should be a slave to the structure, not the other way around. --NE2 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Lots of stations have mezzanines. So? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that since the name is used for both stations, and it's not unwidely long, and it's found on literature, like station signs, and the map, this station doesn't belong on this review list anyway. As for the rest of the stations, don't split them up. If we can find another name for the stations, then the complexes can be saved. But don't split them up. Me and Marc put a lot of effort into merging them, and we'll never get our time back for them. We should find some way to prevent splitting this article, or any article. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I understand that you put a lot of work in, but guess what? "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You should have understood this from the moment you started editing here. So if we decide to keep some of the complexes, it'll be for reasons that do not involve the amount of editing effort.
- No one's thinking about splitting all the complexes. Plenty of them are just fine.
- We're not discussing the station's name, but the article's name and whether it should be considered a complex. There's no doubt that "Franklin Avenue" is correct.
- Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind WP:IAR. This means that you shouldn't always let the rules get in your way to contributing towards Wikipedia. Just as long as people remain respectful at all times, the rules should not get in your way for the good of the project. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind WP:AGF. This means that, barring evidence to the contrary, you should assume that we are thinking of the good of the project. --NE2 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR has nothing to do with this. There are no rules being discussed here. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that a note that shows at the bottom of every editing field shouldn't make you not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. No editor should have to deal with that, just as long as the editor is contributing in a civil manner. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR has nothing to do with this. There are no rules being discussed here. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind WP:AGF. This means that, barring evidence to the contrary, you should assume that we are thinking of the good of the project. --NE2 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind WP:IAR. This means that you shouldn't always let the rules get in your way to contributing towards Wikipedia. Just as long as people remain respectful at all times, the rules should not get in your way for the good of the project. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
No one said you shouldn't contribute. But the "If you don't want…" text is not a rule at all, but a fundamental, pervasive principle of Wikipedia and all Wiki-style projects. Simply put, you cannot argue against a change by saying that it would undo your hard work. Just because (most) editors maintain civility and follow the rules does not mean that their work is immune to the revisionist's pen; they contribute with full knowledge that their contributions can be altered at any time for the good of the project—sometimes drastically. And the changes NE2 and I are discussing will make the project better, we believe. If others' work has to be undone to achieve this goal, so be it—this is what they signed up for. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
