Talk:New York City Subway nomenclature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 New York City Public Transportation.
|
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 |
New York City Subway nomenclature has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
New York City Subway nomenclature was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: April 1, 2007 |
You like so far, SPUI? :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not bad; I'll probably wait until you've done more before editing it again, to avoid edit conflicts. --SPUI 06:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm now writing off line, so you can edit if you like, but it might be a good idea to edit in small chunks to minimize the possibility of conflict when I add a section. BTW, I wrote this because I was starting to explain these points on the project talk page, but figured WTF, why do all that writing for a talk page when it could be read by anyone in a permanent article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- One suggestion I have is to have the first section be about the current system, and then everything after dealing with the history. --SPUI 06:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I only have the modern section to go, and it flows as a narrative with what went before. But it does make sense to tell people what the current system is first, so if you have a way to summarize current practice in an opening section, or whatever, that would probably be good. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm now writing off line, so you can edit if you like, but it might be a good idea to edit in small chunks to minimize the possibility of conflict when I add a section. BTW, I wrote this because I was starting to explain these points on the project talk page, but figured WTF, why do all that writing for a talk page when it could be read by anyone in a permanent article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
Directional Nomenclature: R-train to 95th Street Brooklyn -- I've never heard this called "an Uptown R train". Where is that contention from? Also, I've never heard (in extensive Brooklyn-Manhattan subway riding) any train announced as "City-bound", though apparently that was the case in the BMT era. As long as I've been a subway rider (since 1995) it's without exception "Manhattan- (or Bronx-)bound". (Alan)
Contents |
[edit] Those "Other" Letters
Letter "P" for BMT Culver was NEVER on the drawing board. It is a rumor started by those who probably weren't around at the time. Say it often enough and people believe it might have been so.
- "I" was nixed because of its similarity to the number one.
- "O" because of confusion with "zero," though the MTA has recently been showing around an "O" train as a promotion for NYC getting the Olympics.
- "P" didn't make the cut for the most obvious reason of all--its mildly rude implications, made worse by the fact that a local at the time would have been PP. But more recently they did talk of a temporary "P" train to provide service from Jamaica to Penn Station in the event of an Amtrak strike.
Note that for the Second Avenue Subway, they've skipped over "P" again, though it's right next to the "Q" which is also supposed to run up 2nd, going straight to reviving "T".
The BMT Culver was never, ever intended to be re-mainlined. It had only one way to go, even though it went there about a decade later than expected. The TA even went to the extent of discontinuing the previous shuttle service to 36/4, and making the 9th Avenue terminal single tracked.
"P=Culver" is only for fantasy maps. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hah, understood. I wonder if they put K along with the J to prevent the possible coexistence of K and KK. Meh, it would be nice to have access to records about why they made their decisions, not just what was decided. It would also be nice to have the exact colors of the current services, as is nicely provided for the old ones at [1]. But that would make things too easy. --SPUI (talk) 10:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, in 1960 they weren't too into systems analysis and information theory. I know about the O,I,P stuff first hand but not why they chose the other letters other than the obvious: J was a natural for Jamaica, M for Myrtle and K and L finished the Eastern Division, then they went to N for Southern Division and so on. I can find no logic at all to the Southern Division letters.
- You can find out the exact colors if you can glom a recent copy of the Graphic Standards Manual (or find someone who has one). I don't, they're like $100 each.
- As to the K-KK thing, it has also been argued that they had to make the K a single letter when it replaced the AA because it now ran through Harlem and would have been too close for comfort as KK; but I'm sure that's another urban myth, as all lines went single letter at the same time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There's the strange KK-K shift in 1973 when it was cut back to Eastern Pkwy; any idea why that was done? It was still a local in 1974. --SPUI (talk) 23:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. I have no idea; if there were a racial protest I would have thought it would have shown up in the papers at the time. So I have no opinion one way or the other. I can think of a few precedents where transportation signage or routings had political significance: when the West Berlin subway hooked beneath East Berlin. After the Berlin Wall was put up, the line still ran, but stations in East Berlin were closed and guarded; after the 1967 war, Israel reinstated a bus route that had been cancelled when Jerusalem was partitioned. This apparently had symbolic meaning since it was mentioned in the western press. The only example I can think of where there was an ethnically-tinged protest against a route designation was in an Eastern European city (sorry I can't remember which one) where, maybe 20(?) years ago, the authorities were giving a particular route number to a tram service. It seems that the number was infamous because it was that of a tram line that many Jews took from the city ghetto to a point where they were deported. Enough people remembered that there was a major protest and I believe a different route number was chosen. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There's the strange KK-K shift in 1973 when it was cut back to Eastern Pkwy; any idea why that was done? It was still a local in 1974. --SPUI (talk) 23:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Here's another,recent one for you. Supposedly the newest light rail line in LA is called the Gold line and not the yellow line because of the fact that it passes through Chinatown, and they wanted to avoid the obvious racial references. Gold sounds better anyway. --oknazevad 00:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Diamond 5 service
I corrected the information on the diamond 5.
5 service to 238th Street is signified as a diamond and only runs during the rush hours. The page had it as regular service with Dyre Avenue trains as rush hour. The Dyre Avenue 5 (a/k/a "circle 5") is the regular service.
--Allan 17:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph as it stood:
- "Nomenclature used on the New York City Subway system has been defined by New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to precisely identify each part of the system, both internally and publicly. Some of the nomenclature dates back to the original operators of the system, while some was adopted much more recently because of changing conditions."
was too broadly stated, and factually incorrect at several levels. The wording I substituted describes the origin of the nomenclature, very little of which originated after Unification in 1940. Additionally:
- The bolded lead statement is supposed to match the title of the article (matter of Wikipedia style);
- It has not been defined by the MTA. The MTA is an oversite agency only, though it has influence over its subsidiaries and affilities'
- The MTA is not "New York City's" anything. It is a state corporate agency; in fact the NYCTA is also a state, not a city entity;
- Almost all of the nomenclature in this article is from historical usage, as I alluded to above, not from an conscious effort to "precisely identify each part of the system. In point of fact, nomenclature varies depending between public and internal usage, and also varies between legal and colloquial usage. -- Cecropia 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] W diamond
There never was a W diamond service. At the time, ALL W trains ran express on the line, and when such changes effected all trains, then the circle designation would be used on the trains. The Diamond W signs are a remnant of an intention to change the old Diamond N line(which was essentially identical to the current W) to a Diamond W.
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Review
This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] R diamond
The brochure referenced shows that the R diamond was yellow. According to [2], it was always yellow, but newer rollsigns have a brown R diamond. --NE2 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
