Jump to content

Talk:B Division (New York City Subway)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Service names

[edit]

Current or recent names are bolded. --NE2 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in services

[edit]
Current
  • A
  • BB → B → moved from Washington Heights to Bedford Park (swapped with C) → moved from West End to Brighton (swapped with D)
  • <CC> → C → moved from Bedford Park to Washington Heights (swapped with B)
  • D → moved from Brighton to West End (swapped with B)
  • E
  • F
  • GG → G
  • HH → merged into and split from A → CC → H → Rockaway Park Shuttle
  • split from F → V
  • split from N → W
Former
  • AA → K → merged into C
  • HH → abandoned (Court)
  • NX → discontinued
  • split from QT, RR → EE → merged into N
  • 3 → T, TT → merged into B
  • 5 → SS → abandoned (Culver)
  • 6 → abandoned (Fifth)
  • 8 → merged into 1, 2
  • 9 → abandoned (Flushing)
  • 11 → MJ → abandoned
  • 12 → abandoned (Lexington)
  • 13 → abandoned (Fulton)
  • 14 → JJ → KK → K → discontinued

Width(s)

[edit]

According to the infoboxes that I found in the articles listed in this template, the cars are 10 ft 0 in (3,050 mm) wide. What gives? Peter Horn User talk 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– I was adding the requests page by page, but later I noticed this template. There is no reason to disambiguate these pages, per our guideline "(New York City Subway [car])" is unneeded, as the place to be moved redirect there. Although in some cases this request is unneeded i wanted to search for consensus if necessary. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "B Division", there are multiple uses (especially in sports, and sometimes in military naming), and I am surprised the disambiguation page was never completed. "Hi-V" and "Lo-V" could probably use disambiguation as well, but those might go at "(disambiguation)". I will note that the meaning of Lo-V and Hi-V are "low voltage" and "high voltage", and these terms are used for things other than subway cars in the same way out in the world, (and also for velocity) ; "AB Standard" is also used in standards so would also need a disambiguation page (probably at "(disambiguation)") -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me of another; "MS Multi-section car" could refer to any type of railroad car. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you by continue giving no reasons and just delaying a community consensus. Will you continue evading my questions and acting as if you were a newbie or you are going to give a real reason? Read WP:TITLE and WP:DABS or otherwise, stop editing here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support oppose all. We shouldn't unnecessarily disambiguate titles but I'm not convinced that removing the text in parentheses adheres to WP:CRITERIA which states: A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics.... Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. Would a layman reader understand these terms without having an expert knowledge of the NYC subway system? Zarcadia (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these terms are recognizable, therefore change to oppose. Zarcadia (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. And opppose related multiple move request here. Recognizability is my major concern, how it shows up in a search. (The latter in particular just seem like random collections of letters and numbers, of which I am sure there are plenty of replications in commercial models of different products, roads, etc.) These are highly technical terms, and a disambiguator is very useful. A person who doesn't get an exact name right for the cars (or something else similar sounding), can nonetheless hone in on (or avoid) the article when it shows up in a search list with the "New York City subway car" disambiguator in brackets. Picking and choosing between which titles should or shouldn't have a DAB isn't particularly neat. It would be nice to have a standard title template for New York City subway cars. If people find that too long, I might go for simply "(subway car)" as sufficient. Walrasiad (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK we need a break here, I mean, check the opposes they are lame in my opinion. First of all, I requested this in November 4, to date nobody has even take for consideration to create a disambiguation page for B Division, and guess what it still redirected here. Eleven days and nobody has given a real shit about that. And the opposes were because "it may mean multiple things", well, are you going to work on that? The same applies to "Low-V".

Now we have "Deck Roof", "Hi-V", "MS Multi-section car" and "BU cars", and people crying the same: "MS Multi-section car" may refer to "any kind of car". Do we have an article about the French/Mexican/LA, etc. MS Multi-section car, or any other fucking "MS Multi-section car" here? No, if that concept is so ambiguous why it doesn't have a page for other MS Multi-section cars? All those four pages still in red.

We have Bluebird Compartment Car that can be confused (I don't know how) with a company, and now the most stupidiest thing I've heard here "I oppose Q-type Queens car" (D-type Triplex and Flivver Lo-V are included here). The reason? Nobody has given one, especially because I doubt that "Q-type Queens car" may refer to the cars that Elizabeth II and Margrethe II use to travel, rather than a borough. People here apparently cannot understand in simple terms WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB. "The Day After Tomorrow" is not a concept that is about a film, is about a day that will happens in two days; "Price Tag" is not a concept that is about a song, is about a label; "Rumours" and "The Dark Side of the Moon" are not concepts that are about albums, they mean, respectively, "a piece of purportedly true information that circulates without substantiating evidence" and "the far side of the Moon that is permanently turned away from the Earth", but guess how we work in Wikipedia:

As simple as this. We don't work to make other people life easier, we work here for convenience, we have a MOS, and you are ignoring it. Other people have understand this, why you don't? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image Caption

[edit]

Hey @Epicgenius: I noticed you changed my caption to something less helpful. The point of noting the number of doors is that it's the easiest way to tell which type you are looking at. Since it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article I though it was worth mentioning. Also how is the R179 not typical? They made 318 of them, and they look exactly the same as the other 2/3rds of the B Division roster. I just picked an image of one because it was a good image. Anyway I'm saying this because I'm changing it back, and I don't want to start an edit war. Gamingcanary (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamingcanary, thanks for bringing this up. I disagree that the change is "less helpful", as the caption didn't previously mention which route the train was running on, which arguably is pretty relevant when you're using an image of a J train and describing it as a "typical" B Division train.
However, here are the other reasons I changed the caption:
  • Most people are not going to pay attention to the number of doors each train has. While it is true that the current B Division fleet has four doors on each side, this was not historically true - for example, the AB Standard (New York City Subway car) had three doors on each side. Therefore, the number of doors is not a defining characteristic of B Division stock.
  • Arguably, the easiest way to tell apart A and B Division services is that the B Div services have lettered route designations, whereas the A Div (except the 42nd Street Shuttle, which is internally labeled as "0") has numbered route designations.
  • The R179 isn't typical because the 318-car order represents maybe 10% of the B Division fleet - in fact, there are more base-order R211s than R179s currently in service, even though the R179 order is completed. If you want to use an image of a "typical" train, the R160 would be more representative, as it comprises nearly half of the B Division fleet.
– Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius:
Following up on what you said:
1. I think not mentioning the route designation is fine because you can just look at the picture and see it. Also how is the J not typical?? I get that it's somewhat unique, but we're talking about trains here, not lines.
2. The thing with the doors has been 100% true now for over 60 years, and it doesn't seem will change anytime soon. Inconsistencies in intuition are in my opinion less of a problem when the AB Standards haven't been in service since the early 60's
3. As you say in your own argument not all lettered lines are B Division.
4. What it means for something to be representative/typical is that most of its traits are shared by other things. The R160 and R179 share so many traits that it's wrong to say the R179 isn't generally representative of it. The only real way to tell them apart is by looking at minuscule details in their construction, which nobody but the most rabid foamers can pick up on. Gamingcanary (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamingcanary, a few responses:
  • 1. I didn't mean to say the J wasn't typical. If I gave that impression, I apologize. My reasoning is that if we're using an image of a J train, we should mention that the J is one of the B Division routes.
  • 2 and 3. Every lettered line, except for the 42nd Street Shuttle, is a B Div line; the sole exception is internally labeled as a number. This is more of a defining characteristic of the B Div than the number of doors in rolling stock. It's kind of like saying that B Div trains can be distinguished by their use of 60- and 75-foot train cars - the A Div doesn't use 60- and 75-foot cars, but that isn't the reason the two divisions are different. By contrast, with that single exception, all B Div routes have lettered designations, and all A Div routes have numbered designations.
  • 4. Fair enough. The reason I mention the R179 being atypical is that they don't actually make up most of the fleet, not that they don't look similar to the R160s.
– Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: More followup
1. I feel that is obvious because it's on the B Division article.
2 and 3. The longer train cars are literally the only difference between the A and B division. The MTA could call them anything they want. Having them be letters and numbers is just a choice they made for clarity. The choice of train car dimensions is because the other types physically do not fit outside of their divisions. Gamingcanary (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamingcanary, my responses:
  • It may be obvious to you and me, but it may not be obvious to others. I think it would still be helpful if the caption were changed to something like "Typical B Division train, seen here on the J route".
  • The difference has to do with the width, not the length, of the trains. Specifically, it has to do with the loading gauge. The A Div uses shorter cars because the turning radii are smaller, which in turn is because of the smaller loading gauge. However, it's possible that the B Div could also use shorter cars; there is nothing physically stopping the B Division from using even shorter cars, or cars with only 3 doors on each side.
    In any case, if we are to explicitly point out that B Division trains (currently) have 4 doors on each side, we should change the caption to say something like "B Division train cars have four doors on each side, as opposed to three". The current wording, "Note the four sets of doors as opposed to three", is not informative unless you already know that all B Division trains have 4 doors on each side. I just noticed that this is why the caption sounded weird to me - it's not because the number of doors is irrelevant, it's because the number of doors is introduced without that additional context.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B_Division_(New_York_City_Subway)&oldid=1266512327"