Talk:Second Avenue Subway

Time to Split (2)

The article continues to grow - I don't have the word count tool, but it's up about 20% since January, or about 20k words. I suggest breaking out the construction into a separate article - that will be the most stable unless/until they start a new stage. After that, as noted above, a separate history article makes sense. I do not have time to start now, but if no one else does, can jump in later this season. Jd2718 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• The article is only 17,687 words, so I don't know where you got the 20k figure from. In any case, I oppose a full split because it's unnecessary, but maybe the historic-proposals section could be split, with some context about the current-construction section. I say "maybe" because I am planning to make this a good topic, with the main SAS article being a good or featured article, and I'd rather not have a page split lead to this article's degradation or even demotion. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• I have created a draft in my sandbox. epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The split has now been carried out. The article is now at History of the Second Avenue Subway. epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  (I have no idea what I was thinking in September 2017. A 17K-word article is far too long per WP:SIZERULE.)

  Anyway. I do think the article should be condensed a bit as Phase 2 proceeds, particularly the construction details pertaining to Phase 1. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think the stuff cut should be moved to the history article? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. The issue is that the history article is itself getting long. Perhaps we should split it up into a few articles, e.g. Early plans for the Second Avenue Subway (covering the earliest plans up to the 1990s) and Construction of the Second Avenue Subway (covering the 1990s plan and current construction).

  I was contemplating an article for the history of the SAS during the 1960s and 1970s, which was part of the Program for Action, but that may be too niche. There is definitely plenty of coverage about the Second Avenue Subway (Program for Action), though. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Services

Why are we not showing all current services for the Second Ave Subway? Cards84664 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, why are you changing a long-standing satus quo without consensus to do so, and edit warring to keep it in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You changed it back without pressing the revert button, and used an abbreviation that has no common meaning, so why wouldn't I? Also, please link me to the long-standing discussion, I have not seen such. Cards84664 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm the user who uploaded File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-QT.svg (although it is not in use on this article, the upload of this image led to the placement of the Q/T infobox images that are there today). It was a result of this discussion on December 18, 2016, when PrecipiceofDuck created File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd-future.svg to signify the N, Q, and future T bullets. He had said, I thought the N/Q bullets and the T bullets should be displayed separately since the T is only a proposed service. I think it was changed to show only Q/T at a later date. Personally, I think it should be N, Q, R, and T, like the IRT New Lots Line article with the 2, 3, 4, and 5, even though only the 3 stops there during the daytime.

"LGV" means "last good version", by the way. It is listed in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one that started that discussion and which was followed up by discussion at the wikiproject talk page (though I don't have a specific archive link handy). I'll say now what I said then: a handful of oddball variant runs that aren't even deemed significant enough to show on station signage shouldn't be in the infobox, as they're relatively minor, could confuse readers, and, because of how our infoboxes are formatted, essentially create ficticious signage. Including the R at the very top of the article because of one short-turn run (which doesn't even appear in the current official timetable, btw) is questionable. The half dozen N trains aren't anymore significant. Noting them in the services section is enough (though the bullets there are also questionable; why do we have redundant and frankly purely decorative images there in the first place?) oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They aren't really decorative. In all of the other subway line articles except for this one, all the services that use the line are listed in the infobox, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time, or a few rush-hour runs only. I would point out the IRT New Lots Line article as an example. On the other hand, this article displays a service that doesn't exist yet (the T) and doesn't display the services that do use the line (the N and R). But I think we can reword the infobox so the image caption also mentions that very few N and R trains stop here. epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, they're decorative in the sense that we already have illustrative bullets at the top of the articles. As for the second part, instead of adding the bullets for a handful of rush hour runs here, we really ought to be taking them out of the other articles for the same reasons as I listed above. Including them rises to the same level of trivial detail as counting rivets on a R38 subway car. Mention them in body text, don't treat them as eqvluivalent to the regular primary services on the line that appear on the map or station signage, as it creates fictitious signage here. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Counting rivets" is funny. I like it. On the other hand, maybe we can remove the service bullets from the line articles' infoboxes if they don't primarily serve the line, since we already do this in the stations' articles. epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What about dropping the prose and just explaining the services outright? Cards84664 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: What do you think of these? Cards84664 (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think these would look better as full sentences, or at least sentence fragments (row 2 of this table). Or else we can drop unnecessary details (row 3). epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. Row 3 hands down. Cards84664 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Cards84464's version	Second Avenue Subway Regular service: Q Broadway Express Limited service: N Broadway Express One rush hour trip: R Broadway Local Future service: T Second Avenue Local	IRT New Lots Line Regular service: 3 Seventh Avenue Express Limited service: 2 Seventh Avenue Express Limited service: 4 Lexington Avenue Express Very limited service: 5 Lexington Avenue Express
epicgenius's version	Second Avenue Subway The Q Broadway Express serves the Second Avenue Line at all times. Limited rush-hour service is provided by the N Broadway Express and the R Broadway Local. The T Second Avenue Local will serve the line in the future.	IRT New Lots Line The 3 Seventh Avenue Express serves the New Lots Line at all times except late nights. Limited rush-hour service is provided by the 2 Seventh Avenue Express, 4 Lexington Avenue Express, and 5 Lexington Avenue Express. The 4 also serves the line during late nights.
Condensed version without detail	Second Avenue Subway The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q. Limited service is also provided by the N and R. The T will serve the line in the future.	IRT New Lots Line The New Lots Line is normally served by the 3. Limited service is also provided by the 2, 4, and 5.

I like the third version too. Enough detail without overwhelming the reader with unimportant factoids, while not giving false impressions of the extent of the services. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One last thing, though: we still need to explain why the colors are there in the infobox. Especially for the Second Avenue Subway, which is technically "turquoise" but obviously the Q is yellow. So which version shall it be? epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Second Avenue Subway
The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q. Limited service is also provided by the N and R. The T will serve the full line in the future, and will be colored turquoise since it will use the line through Midtown Manhattan.

Second Avenue Subway
The Second Avenue Line is served by the Q. Limited service is also provided by the N and R. The T will serve the full line in the future, and will be colored turquoise.

Here's my way to simplify. Cards84664 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Second Avenue Subway
Second Avenue (turquoise) is served by the Q. Limited service is also provided by the N and R. The T will serve the full line in the future.

The M train has been running up on the 2nd Avenue line on weekends and will do so nights/weekends during the impending L train shutdown. Is this worth adding to the service description?

The New York Times

@Kew Gardens 613: @Epicgenius: I just saw your article from The New York Times, It was featured on the front page of Wikipedia's news on Google. I have added the media template to this talk page, due to its mention in the NYT article. Congrats! Cards84664 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it would be out this early. I thought they would wait for the Sunday magazine issue. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: It will be in the Metro section.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per WP:SNOW and the arguments made below. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Second Avenue Subway → IND Second Avenue Line – for consistency with the other NYC subway lines. While it is referred to by news media as "Second Avenue Subway", this is pretty awkward wording as "subway" is usually used to refer to an entire subway system, not a single line. I am also willing to use Second Avenue Line for this same purpose. That, or the other articles referring the subway lines with their company names ($1 $2 Line) could simply have the company name dropped in their title (so $2 Line). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, it's inconsistent. No, that is not a reason to move from what is clearly the name used by everybody, including reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME, as stated above. We don't automatically name articles with the official name, COMMONNAME takes precedence. A good past rail-related example is here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to wonder if changing to "second avenue line" would be better than the title I initially proposed. A bigger question is whether we should drop the company names (IRT, BMT, IND) from the other train lines for conciseness. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, that would be even more confusing. This term can also refer to the IRT Second Avenue Line (elevated) and the M15 (New York City bus) (formerly the Second Avenue Line). The current title may technically not be a subway system, but it's still descriptive enough. If the company names were not used, the line would be called Second Avenue Line (subway), which is not shorter than the current name. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Second Avenue Subway" is the commonly used term and far more recognizable due to the history behind it. There's no reason to change it. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 9:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME which this proposal ignores. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While the internal name for the line is the IND Second Avenue Line, the common name used by nearly all media is "Second Avenue Subway". "Second Avenue Line" as a title is even more ambiguous; there is both a former elevated line and a surface transportation (bus) line with this name. There are several other instances in which different companies did use the same line name, e.g. IRT Sixth Avenue Line, IND Sixth Avenue Line. Barring that, I don't see the reason to drop the company name from other lines.

I do sympathize with the nominator's intent, having made an ill-advised request to move Atlantic Terminal some years ago. But there isn't really an overarching need for title consistency here. If the concern is that inconsistent titles may lead to red links, then there is not an issue as IND Second Avenue Line already redirects here. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius You mean World Trade Center station (PATH). But yeah I see. I am guessing if MTA and media be inconsistent with naming so be it. We aren't prescriptive, we are descriptive, and if "second avenue line" or "IND second avenue line" becomes more commonly searched in the future, then a move can be made there. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:58, 4 May 2022 (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.

Grand Central spur

@Jd2718: Regarding your recent revert, page 17 of the MESA says: "The Grand Central Terminal spur service could not achieve competitive frequency due to capacity constraints on the Second Avenue route." In other words, there was not enough track capacity. (The MESA also mentions "competitive travel time", which I forgot to add.)

In regards to your edit summary, though, I'm not seeing where it takes up two lines of space. On my 1280x1024 display, the info shows up on the same line as the sentence before it. Perhaps we can reword this to "due to a lack of track capacity or time savings"? Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a claim, not a fact, it needs to be identified as such, which would stretch the text (currently just over a full line) to a bit longer. More than one line, less than two lines. It is a fact that they made the claim - not a fact that the claim is true. On the other hand, that the spur was considered, but dropped, is absolutely a well sourced fact. Jd2718 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)