Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Support:''' per the guidance (] and ]) and the evidence (particularly the n-gram evidence). WP does capitalise proper nouns/proper names. It determines what is a proper name on the basis of empirical evidene (ie usage in sources). There is no evidence presented that shows it is consistently capitalised in sources. Assertions here that, it ''is'' a proper name and should therefore be capitalised, are ''non-sequitur''. They are largely of the type: "it is, because I say it is; therefore it is". Just because a name phrase has a specific referent it does not follow that it is a proper name. Specificity arises through the use of the definite article (ie "the") - as is done with this phrase. Indeed, as a generalisation (to which there are some exceptions), articles do not attach to ]s. Furthermore, proper nouns/names are not descriptive. The subject name phrase ''is'' clearly descriptive. Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. As to the argument of generic v descriptive, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by ] (see ]). Concluding, the MOS is clear on the criteria for determining capitalisation and this is not being met.
*'''Support:''' per the guidance (] and ]) and the evidence (particularly the n-gram evidence). WP does capitalise proper nouns/proper names. It determines what is a proper name on the basis of empirical evidene (ie usage in sources). There is no evidence presented that shows it is consistently capitalised in sources. Assertions here that, it ''is'' a proper name and should therefore be capitalised, are ''non-sequitur''. They are largely of the type: "it is, because I say it is; therefore it is". Just because a name phrase has a specific referent it does not follow that it is a proper name. Specificity arises through the use of the definite article (ie "the") - as is done with this phrase. Indeed, as a generalisation (to which there are some exceptions), articles do not attach to ]s. Furthermore, proper nouns/names are not descriptive. The subject name phrase ''is'' clearly descriptive. Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. As to the argument of generic v descriptive, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by ] (see ]). Concluding, the MOS is clear on the criteria for determining capitalisation and this is not being met.
:::Given that major civil works are a glaring example to this alleged rule of definite article-lessness, this reads very much like a canned response. ] (]) 02:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Stephen Harrison (March 28, 2018). "If You See Something, Write Something". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2018. Last year the general article for the "New York City Subway" received an average of 1,750 daily page views.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria1995, Kxie16 (article contribs).
To add the "Full and partial subway closures"
Before 2011 there have been some full subway closures for NYC transit strikes (1-13 January 1966, 1-11 April 1980, 20-22 December 2005) and blackouts (9 November 1965, 13-14 July 1977, 14-16* August 2003). I think that it is necessary to add them.
Friday 15 August at 9:30 pm the power was restored to the entire city, but only Saturday morning 16 August around 6:00 am, the MTA resumed services throughout the City.
Rfc about station layouts
I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves." There is more context for the declined close request here.
If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About the articles for the various NYC subway stations, I am not sure whether there should be station layouts depicting the platforms for the stations, for Misplaced Pages is not a guidebook or travel guide. Should we remove the station layouts sections (but probably keep the track layouts diagrams) from the current NYC subway stations' articles?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per previous discussion of the issue, and because WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't really apply here, but see below. The policy states that Misplaced Pages is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like, and it might be useful to remove simple layouts only served by one route. However, the NYC subway generally includes complex stations with three or four tracks, e.g. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station, and these tables are useful in visually depicting text that is described and referenced more thoroughly in the prose. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE to do this, especially if the station's layout is complicated.
Unlike the Singapore MRT, at least 80% of NYC subway station articles have referenced layouts, and more than 10% of NYC Subway station articles are good articles. Furthermore, unlike Singapore, the NYC Subway typically has an intricate service pattern, with two or three services to a platform (e.g. Bowling Green station). Removing this will not help the reader understand the prose part of the article, and is actually detrimental in my opinion; e.g. in the Hoyt-Schermerhorn example, it would be even more confusing to note which trains use which tracks. Note that for other systems, this is not the case, and it would be beneficial to remove the station layouts for these articles. Furthermore, it would be worth looking into whether we should remove accessibility information and other elements that may resemble guidebooks.
@Epicgenius: Many editors in that discussion also pointed out that station layouts should only be in articles of big complex stations, and should be removed from normal 2 platform stations. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
1.02 editor, removing station layouts from simple 2 platform stations (served by only one route, which are not part of station complexes) would probably be fine. But it also depends on the context. If the 2 platform station has an unusual, reliably sourced feature (e.g. Broadway station (IND Crosstown Line)'s unused platform level) it would probably be better to leave it. Also, the NYC Subway, unlike almost all other systems, does not have a {{S-line}} type diagram in the infobox showing the next stops and the destinations of the trains. That purpose is kind of served by the station layout. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ambivalent. On one hand, i agree that illustrating the more complicated stations can be useful. On the other hand, many of the stations are simple enough not to need them; for example it really doesn't add anything to Hunters Point Avenue station except bloat. I also find the current format rather mediocre. I've always disliked the way the the levels are arranged with them stacked vertically, but each layer is itself a top-down view. I also think some of the details are excessive and clearly travel guide like, such as saying on which side the doors of the train will open (and the "Island platform, doors will open on the left, right" phrasing is really awkward). I think the idea of illustrating the layouts of complex stations (and especially station complexes) is useful, but not all stations need them, and the current templates are not ideal. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Track layout, Remove Station layout. I am in favor of keeping the track layouts but not the station layouts. I think when it comes to illustrating the layout of the station the simpler track layout, which only shows platforms, tracks and where they lead to. This is especially helpful for most NYCS stations due to the complex nature of services and lines. The big station layouts however contain too much unencyclopedic information to not fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, and lack the ability to show the station as part of a line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong Keep - evidently beating a dead horse, per Epicgenius's links. This is a longstanding and valuable tool for learning about and understanding the layout and workings of a train station, likely more useful and used for that than by passengers trying to get somewhere. ɱ(talk)02:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with this, but it dosent cover for the fact that the template has unneeded details as pointed out by Oknazevad. Once removed, the remaining details can be represented in the track layout template, rendering the station layout template redundant.1.02 editor (T/C) 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, stations are not just tracks, the station layouts display much more information: which services use which tracks, which directions the tracks are used for, alignment with major roads, and presence of overpasses or underpasses. Ideally the platform layout template would evolve to something more streamlined, and I could see it perhaps with indicators of other station functions - the waiting room, concourse, ticket windows/machines, etc., to act as a station map without needing to create so many separate images. ɱ(talk)05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Stations are not just tracks, but i dont see how some of the information in the station layout makes it into an encyclopedia. A look at the station layout of Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station reveals a large swath of elevator information, information on the steep gradient of a passageway, and as mentioned before, information on which side doors will open. Surely this is not considered encyclopedic information right? Furthermore, most layouts of regular local stations can be removed outright at the graphical layout can be easily represented in prose. Although i agree that layouts should be kept for more complex stations like Times Square, i cant see for myself how it helps to 'map' the station since everything is taken out of place and put on top of each other on a 2D page (surely the station is not like that in real life). 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: Passageway between IND platforms and rest of the complex is a steep grade'
1.02 editor, the accessibility information can be removed and replaced with a simple indicator of whether the station is accessible or not. I don't see how door-opening information violates NOTTRAVEL. The wikiproject already agreed it violated the guideline if the diagram said "Doors will open on the left for local trains and on the right for express trains". However, stating "Doors open on the left or right" (as opposed to Platform not in use) is a simple fact that falls under WP:BLUE, rather than travel guide information. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, like I said the graphic at Times Square/42nd or anywhere is clearer and more simple than anything paragraphs of text would do; a picture is worth a thousand words. Visualizing the station layout is very beneficial to supplement prose about different lines and access points, and also beneficial to readers simply looking at the photos and graphics. Yes, it still needs to be smaller, clearer, and less Web 1.0, but those are problems for another time and another discussion. ɱ(talk)16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If i want to visualize the station i would use a 3D diagram. The only thing a person with no background information can infer from the current one is which levels each line sit on and the platforms of each line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 00:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
1.02 editor, short of a 3D diagram (which can only be made as an image), the current tables are our next best option. Having the visualization of the levels is better than no visualization at all. epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes but this is more about the layout of the station. The following and terminal station should definitely be included, preferably through templates in the infobox.
Given the complexity of service patterns, having just one service with multiple patterns is extremely difficult to display in the infobox. With multiple services (e.g. this), it becomes nearly impossible to read. It is not editor-friendly or reader-friendly. This isn't the case with the station layout tables, where a few rows clearly display the adjacent stations in a readable format. The relative locations of mezzanines and the ground is also easier to visualize, although these are also included and referenced in the prose. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment This is not to delete the track layout diagrams, but only the station layouts (that specify the exits, concourse and the platforms). However, if you wish, yall can consider keeping the platform level instead of including the other levels, and put it under 'platform layout' than 'station layout'. It will be preferable to use the adjacent stations template, which will be easier to read than using the station layout to see the adjacent stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
ZKang123, keeping the platform layout might be a good idea. The section would still be named "station layout" since the prose still talks about the overall layout of the station. epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Some possibilities: it was recently extended c. 1.65 miles plus a bit more to account for the turn plus the other turn from 7th and 59th to x feet east of 6th "and 63rd" which is geometrically impossible to be under 0.25 miles cause Pythagorean Theorem. Another possibility: What you measure. Things like are the routes with 2 dead ends measured from the ends of the train or from the ends of the passenger parts (which is only millitrainlengths shorter) or from the center of the train since you only move that distance when you ride in the same seat. That would make each route up to >0.11 miles shorter. Or if any ends that are literal loops aren't all banned to passengers yet (I've ridden one even after they banned that, no one knew, don't know if you can even get fined for that or if even cops wouldn't care like how they don't about the no breakdancing or homeless with body odor rules) then did/do those extra few mile tenths count cause they don't go anywhere and the journey itself is so boring, featureless and underground that hardly anyone would want to touristicate it. Hopefully another editor with better subway knowledge will come along and say what's the correct mileage and how that number is measured. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of those are wrong having taken the outdated figure from this article. None of those are actual MTA figures, which the current, up-to-date reference actually is. And that ref clearly states 262 when the 14 miles of the SIR is included (which they do because it's managed by the Department of Subways as though it were a subway line). When you subtract 14 from 262 (a routine calculation), the number of New York City Subway route miles is 248. 245 was the old figure from before the opening of the 7 train extension to Hudson yards (approx 1 mile) and the Second Avenue Subway (approx 2 miles). oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it measured from the center of the train or is the half of the train closer to the end of the line also included? Is the part near the one-way station of Bleeker Street counted as the average of the uptown and downtown lengths or are these considered separate one-way routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes the 245 is clearly a very obsolete pre-7 expansion number, 300 feet times nearly every terminal (are there any used loop ends left?) is well over a mile though (whether a note showing the methodology is added to the article or not I don't care)
I was under the impression that non-revenue miles don't count unless noted, why should they count? Some ends-of-the-lines go so deep that 600 foot trains can switch from track to track and return on the opposite side of the terminal, or possibly loop like ex-South Ferry or the "green line" loop (come to think of it I think Bleeker was just platforms that didn't line up, not a split)
Also, when does a branch start adding route miles? When the tunnels become fully separate or els lose all physical connection? When the first rail edge deviates? Somewhere in between like when the average track stops overlapping the one it's turning from or when enough clearance for 2 trains starts?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Because the 7 train extension opened in 2015, not 2017. So in 2015 the number increased one mile, from 245 to 246, then an additional two miles with the opening of the Second Ave Subway in 2017 to the current 248 mile figure. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I remember watching trains go beyond the last station to reach the opposite track, are you telling me those chains count for route miles even though they likely don't count for revenue track? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes. But that's not the issue in this discussion. The issue is that the 245 mile route length figure is outdated, being it doesn't account for the extension of the 7 train or the Second Avenue Subway. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, @Forza NYCFC !n:, remember that this is route miles, not track miles. So any changes in service patterns can also affect it. Note the track miles figure in the same chart in the source goes with the additions in 2015 and 2017. Changes to service patterns because of budget issues in 2010 (cutting the W and merging the M with the V), temporary closures because of Hurricane Sandy (the H train) and preparations for the Second Ave Subway (the return of the W) all affect the route miles number. The plain fact, though, is that as of this date (Super Bowl Sunday, February 7, 2021) the New York City Subway has 248 route miles, and no other figure should appear in the article as it contains the current info. oknazevad (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so if they brought back the 9 train would the route miles suddenly increase by the entire length of the lines the 1 uses? (IRT Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Broadway Line etc, all those old-fashioned pre-unification sounding names). That's not how I imagined it worked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
No. From wikipedia: The system length of a metro network is the sum of the lengths of all routes in the rail network in kilometers or miles. Each route is counted only once, regardless of how many lines pass over it, and regardless of whether it is single-track or multi-track, single carriageway or dual carriageway. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to know how many exact rail route mails has the NY subway? I know that they were 245 miles before expansions of the 7 line (1,5 miles) and the Q line (1,8 miles), therefore the total should be 248,3 miles (399,600 km). We know that the new 1,8 mile tunnel extends under Second Avenue from 63rd Street to 96th Street (https://www.wsp.com/en-SE/insights/new-york-opens-its-second-avenue-subway). But since 2017 it is in operation also a new small segment under the Central Park from 57St -7Th Av station to Lexington Av-63St station. What is the lenght of this tract without calculation the very small part that overlaps with the F line? If it is at least 0,3 miles, the new total should be 248,6 miles and therefore OVER 400 km (a very important and symbolic number). Is it right? Thanks for a possible reply. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Bench controversy
I had added the following text to the lead of this article, but it was reverted as not being in the right place. Please find the appropriate place to put this text. This is a pretty big deal and is already hit at least one mainstream media source and is blowing up social media.
In February 2020, the New York City Subway controversially removed benches from several stations in an effort to reduce instances of homeless persons sleeping on them, which in the era of the COVID 19 pandemic was considered to be unsanitary. However, this move drew considerable backlash from riders who allege that the removal of the benches amounts to disenfranchising people with disabilities and senior citizens.
ONE OF THE EXAMPLES: Just a few blocks from the 96th Street subway station along the 1/2/3 lines sits the abandoned 91st Street Subway station. It was in service since 1904 and was part of the first subway. But with a 200 foot platform, the station was retired in 1959 for similar reasons as the abandoned Worth Street and 18th Street stations. With the extension of neighboring subway stations–96th Street in this case–some stations simply became too close to each other. With one entrance to the 96th Street station just 100 feet from 93rd Street, there wasn’t much use for the 91st Street stop anymore but you can still see it when you’re riding the 1 train.
Actually, I just added that line to the stations section of this article in response to this comment. Peter was right that there was no mention of the closed stations at all in this main article. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
History section
While acknowledging the existence of a separate article, I really am bothered by the fact that this article's history section falls into the old trap of spending an entire paragraph on Alfred Beach's short-lived amusement park ride and then entirely skips two decades of the building of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Els only to tell us that the blizzard of 1888 showed their inadequacies. It's poor writing because it doesn't introduce the Els or their importance, and it ignores that they, not Beach's experiment, are the actual predecessors of the subway system as we know it. Especially since some part of the modern system are the exact same structures (most notably the curve on the Jamaica Line at Crescent Street that is the oldest structure in the system, and predates the first Subway). In short: Beach overrated, Els underreported. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
The signage caps "Station", but our article title 23rd Street station does not, per WP:NCCAPS. Some signs with sentences use lowercase subway. Here "New York City Transit" is the proper name of an org.
It has been 10 years (see Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 3#Requested move) since we last looked at the capitalization of "Subway" here, and found no consensus to change it, even though editors who looked at the evidence agreed that sources use lowercase for this. The Opposers mostly cited signs, maps, equipment, and logos, which it was pointed out are conventionally title case, so not relevant to the criteria in our capitalization policy, or claimed that New York City Subway is a proper name, ignoring the evidence in sources. Some even claimed they want to follow the MTA itself, who operate the system, but didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks."). Titles of maps are almost the only place that that they use "New York City Subway".
Look at File:23 St 8 Av SB entrance.JPG used on 23rd Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line). The station entrance sign in the photo uses capitalized Station (because signs typically use title case) while the Misplaced Pages article title uses sentence case (per policy WP:NCCAPS (ever since we adopted WP:USSTATION, bringing station article titles into agreement with policy). It's the same with Subway: map titles, signs, logos on trains, etc. use title case and cap it. But WP policy says use sentence case, as informed by use in sentences in sources, which overwhelmingly use lowercase subway. See book n-gram stats:
Of course, some signs with complete sentences use sentence case, as in File:New York subway sign assaulting.jpg, with "Assaulting MTA New York City Transit subway personnel is a felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison.", in which "New York City Transit" is an actual proper name of an organization, while subway is not.
There was also a lot of grousing about how much work would need to be done to fix this. It would mean hundreds of moves and thousands of edits, and has probably only gotten worse over time. But that's really not a big problem, as we've seen in other case corrections that touched thousands of articles; it just takes some time and care with some tools like AWB.
Before that last RM discussion in 2011, we had a brief discussion of the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Proper names?, where my detailed rationale with evidence got no pushback. It's still relevant, worth a look.
If you want to comment, please first be familiar with what our title policy is. The lead sentence at WP:NCCAPS says: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. And please also comment on the evidence about whether Subway occurs capitalized in mid-sentence.
Strongest possible oppose. The system has name that is a proper noun. There is zero reason to use a descriptive title (which is what not capitalizing makes it, a grammatical point you repeatedly fail to recognize or acknowledge) for something with an actual name. This is like the Sun Bowl (stadium) situation. A Google test is not a valid determinate because it does not make the distinction between names and descriptive phrases. This has been discussed.
And you are once more coming into a subject without making a single other contribution to it and acting like you know more that the hundreds of people that have edited it before, including people recognized as experts on the subject by reliable sources. The fact that you didn't get your way ten years ago doesn't mean you come back and try again just because you didn't like the result. oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, Strongest possible support. Is that loud enough? Everything that Dicklyon writes above seems reasonable to me, and consistent with WP's past and current approach. Tony(talk)08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
No surprise. You always show up to articles you've never edited before and support his latest campaign. Do you two talk off-wiki? oknazevad (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Where are the project notifications, by the way. This is a high-importance article to my tools projects, none of which have been notified. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a trend, but the nominator once tried to revert a revert of an undiscussed move without discussion, in the same topic matter. Someone moved Malbone Street Wreck to Malbone Street wreck without discussion, I reverted it after 2 hours, and the nom requested to uphold the undiscussed move at WP:RM/TR several months afterward. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it seems this is not the first time the nom has tried to request moves without even notifying involved parties. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The "consensus" was composed of you, Tony, and SMcC, who as far as I know are interested more in capitalization moves than about the actual content of the articles (none of you have edited the Malbone Street article before or since). However, this is irrelevant here, as we are talking about the NYC Subway article. Is it or is it not true that you went to WP:RM/TR to revert my revert of someone else's undiscussed move? Because that is my point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That is just as much not relevant here. I don't recall how that went down, but yes it looks like I went to RM:TR to revert what appeared to me to be an undiscussed over-capitalization move. And yes it's true that some editors work more horizontally on style than vertically on topics, and have not editted a lot of the articles that they have expressed RM opinions on. I do some of each (see my user page). Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I suppose my point about Malbone Street was irrelevant. However, this still brings me to the other reason why I brought this up. Since the article is a top-importance article for WP:NYCS, this should've been mentioned there too. Since it's only a high-importance article for WP:NYC and WP:TRAINS, an article alert might be enough; a manual notification would have also been courteous, but Cards has already done these. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It was indeed mentioned there, too; see WP:NYCS#Alerts/Watchlist. I added that to the list. It's hard to know where all the automatic alerts are, but presumably at any Wikiproject that has declared an interest in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. "the Subway" in reference to this system is a proper name, and can be interpreted as the common name. I see this is being interpreted as "New York City's subway", which feels too much like disambiguation and less like a title. Cards8466412:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NCCAPS: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name (emphasis mine). "New York City Subway" is a proper name. Lowercase "subway" could be used in theory as a common noun, but the only entity that currently operates the subway system is the New York City Subway, operated by the New York City Transit Authority. There is a difference between "a New York City subway" and "the New York City Subway"; a comparison of these would be better fit than a raw comparison of title cases. Vcohen also makes the good point that the PATH and Staten Island Railway can also be considered subways to some extent.
didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks.") - You can remove "New York City" from the sentence and it still makes sense, so this is not a use of the NYCS as a proper name.
But WP policy says use sentence case, as informed by use in sentences in sources, which overwhelmingly use lowercase subway. See book n-gram stats: - This comment about book n-gram stats are overwhelmingly incorrect because these books refer to the subway as a generic name, not the proper noun that actually comprises the subway. Prior to unification in 1941, the system was indeed the New York City subway system as there was no properly named company.
in which "New York City Transit" is an actual proper name of an organization, while subway is not. - The nominator doesn't give any evidence to support this assertion. Are we next going to move New York City transit fares to New York City Transit fares under this reasoning? Note that the title (correctly) contains a lowercase "transit" as the article does not only cover the NYCT system.
Overall, it is worth considering whether keeping the title at the current name is either harmful to the encyclopedia or harmful to readers' understanding of the topic. As neither is applicable here (there is no distinct NYC subway that isn't operated by the NYC Subway), there is no need to move the article.
@Epicgenius: I think your rationales contradict each other, though perhaps not. If moving this article to "New York City subway" would create ambiguity with PATH and SIR, then it can't also be the case that there is no distinct NYC subway that isn't operated by the NYC Subway. PATH comes under the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and SIR and the New York City S/subway are both operated by the New York City Transit Authority. Mackensen(talk)17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the point up, I realized I was unclear. I mean that the PATH and SIR can to an extent be considered subways; however, it is also true that the NYCS (under the NYCTA) is the only operator of what is commonly known as the "NYC subway". I think the NYCS title should still be kept because it is the proper name used in the system's own logo, but yes, when people refer to the "NYC subway", they are talking about the MTA NYCS, not the SIR or PATH.Another potential issue I see is that, indeed, the subway was historically an amalgamation of the IRT, BMT, and IND. Were these still operating today, the NYCS as a brand wouldn't exist, and I would be the first to agree that "subway" should be de-capped, as in Tokyo subway. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to add a few things to my !vote. One most consider the fact that File:MTA New York City Subway logo.svg is the official logo of the subway and is prominently placed in the infobox. Surely if the subway were lowercase (which it isn't), then what would the proper name of the subway system be? If it were indeed a common noun, either this image should be deleted because the brand "New York City Subway" wouldn't exist, or there's going to be a major discrepancy between why the article has a capitalized logo and a lowercase name.The nominator's argument "The signage caps "Station", but our article title 23rd Street station does not, per WP:NCCAPS." is not a comparable argument here. "23rd Street Station" is not a brand, company, or organization name and "Station" is not an essential part of the station name, like it is for "Penn Station". The governing guideline is WP:USSTATION, and, "unlike "Penn Station", the name of the station is just "23rd Street". – Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Just "New York City subway", as a subway located in New York City, may refer to other systems, such as PATH or Staten Island Railway, because they are also located in New York City and may be considered subway systems. Vcohen (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. NCCAPS is clear that unless a proper name is used consistently, it shouldn't be capitalized. Brian Cudahy has written at least two reference works dealing with the subject, Under the Sidewalks of New York and A Century of Subways, and neither uses "New York City Subway" as a proper name, and in fact explicitly does not when given the chance. Regarding the possibility of ambiguity, I think that's easily dealt with by mentioning both systems in the lede as related rapid transit systems that do not fall within the scope of this system. I think it would make good sense to do that regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Mackensen(talk)17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose depending on context, "subway" can either be a generic term (New York City subway system) or part of a title. Unlike other cities where it may be called "the Metro", "the T", "the L", etc. in NYC it is always "subway", regardless of whether it is a formal or a generic reference. I agree that "New York City Subway" is a proper name here and should be capitalized as such. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If people are saying "New York City Subway" isn't the proper name of this subway system, then what is the proper name for it? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. WP does not capitalize that which is not near-uniformly capitalized in sources. The opposes above are full of heat with no light. The light is coming from the sources, which clearly demonstrate mixed usage, even in "official" ones. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Ugh, not this madness again. And "New York City Subway" is an entire proper noun. Like someone above said, just because you didn't get your way 10 years ago is not grounds to try again because you were unhappy with the outcome. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 02:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Neither you nor oknazevad nor others have shown any source-based evidence for your opinion that it's a proper noun. And obviously the need to fix this is not driven by how long I waited since the last attempt, nor by some presumed unhappiness. Usually short waits are what get criticized; not sure how one can complain about such a long wait. It's not about me; at least you didn't make it as much of an ad hominem as oknazevad did. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Conditional support I support only after there are enough pledges from "support" backers to do the legwork to fix things. This means both a decent quantity of names and also along with it, estimated time commitments for each person. Until this condition is met, this vote counts as Oppose. I believe this could go either way because it is both a proper noun and a common noun. To the best of my understanding more people think of it as a common noun. If you need hard evidence, see these ngram viewer results.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am committed to doing the work. I have done thousands of edits on single capitalization issues in the past, and am prepared to do so here as needed; it might take a few weeks. For example, my contributions show about 3000 case fixes to "genocide", May 25–31. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I count about 5,000 inbound links to this article. This does not even include articles with this exact string in the title, of which there are over 100 non-redirect pages and several hundred more redirects. I think it could take months to fully fix this (we haven't even finished fixing links to pages moved under WP:NYCSRFC yet, and that was two years ago). Note that I voted "oppose" above but, if consensus finds in favor of the move, I won't object to asking that these other pages be moved and fixed per WP:TITLECON; however, I won't be able to actually do many of these fixes myself due to the astronomical workload this entails. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
And that's the other thing. Does the sheer amount of disruption that this move would cause actually improve the encyclopedia for readers who have been served just fine for the past decade since this was last suggested, or does it just cause busy work for editors just to mollify a few editors with a personal crusade? It's clearly the latter. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The "sheer amount of disruption" is just some routine work that I've committed to do, with the help of auto wiki browser. It's not a personal crusade; it's a broad consensus on capitalization policy and guidelines. How is this disruptive? If there's a crusade, it's the subway specialists wanting their important stuff to be signified by caps, which is a natural and common application of WP:SSF, but contrary to WP's style. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose New York City has a subway called the New York City Subway, this article is about the system called New York City Subway not about subways in New York in general. None of the evidence presented by those supporting this move shows that the name of the specific subway is a common noun as they claim, just that New York has a common noun subway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is questioning what it's called, just whether it's a proper name. The Library of Congress treats it as not, as evidenced by their use of lowercase subway in their conventionally sentence case representation of titles (like WP!); see this search, with hits such as , , , , , ; if there are cases where LOC caps it, I haven't found them. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
In fact, the Reader will note that DL has posted an anticite here. Hit one is a book about subways in New York - it includes PATH, and the LC l.c. may reflect that. Hit three is a children’s book not particularly about the system, which obviously uses “subway” regardless of what system.
more importantly, though, what does the conventions of a cataloging system have to do with those of an attempt at an encyclopedia? It is entirely possible that the LC only capitalizes works and phrases which are overwhelmingly proper names used as such in its cataloging; does it use the same convention in its publications? Qwirkle (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Were there any meaningful consensus for this, outside of wikiish newspeak meanings of “consensus”, the direction for change would not be coming from a small coterie of uninvolved persons, but from the bulk of people writing the article. Qwirkle (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: per the guidance (WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and the evidence (particularly the n-gram evidence). WP does capitalise proper nouns/proper names. It determines what is a proper name on the basis of empirical evidene (ie usage in sources). There is no evidence presented that shows it is consistently capitalised in sources. Assertions here that, it is a proper name and should therefore be capitalised, are non-sequitur. They are largely of the type: "it is, because I say it is; therefore it is". Just because a name phrase has a specific referent it does not follow that it is a proper name. Specificity arises through the use of the definite article (ie "the") - as is done with this phrase. Indeed, as a generalisation (to which there are some exceptions), articles do not attach to proper nouns. Furthermore, proper nouns/names are not descriptive. The subject name phrase is clearly descriptive. Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. As to the argument of generic v descriptive, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by MOS:CAPS (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Concluding, the MOS is clear on the criteria for determining capitalisation and this is not being met.
Given that major civil works are a glaring example to this alleged rule of definite article-lessness, this reads very much like a canned response. Qwirkle (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria1995, Kxie16 (article contribs).
