Template talk:PATH line map

Incorrect additions/removals to line map diagram

This & this edit add two (2) non-existent stations to the PATH system. The WTC line terminates at WTC. It does not continue, as the proposed diagram indicates, to separate stations at IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line OR Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place/Cortlandt Street station. The proposed diagram also eliminates Hudson Terminal, a historical station located east of the WTC station which replaced it. If there is a wish to indicate adjacent lines, the WTC configuration will need to be corrected and the Hudson Terminal station restored (in keeping with the rest of the diagram showing historical stations). The current & correct diagram should not be altered. In general, the additional information generally clutters the line map; the benefit is dubious. Consensus to make such a change should first be gained at this page. Djflem (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Djflem: I believe your assessment that Hudson Terminal was east of the current WTC station is incorrect. Not only do the coordinates on the Hudson Terminal page place it west of the current WTC station, but as the Hudson Terminal page states that when the WTC station was built, "each of the tubes swung outward using a large jughandle curve around the original Hudson Terminal approach tracks before approaching the World Trade Center platforms." The WTC station page also indicates that Hudson Terminal was bound by Greenwich, Cortlandt, Church, and Fulton Streets. The current WTC station is located within this two square block area, so indicating that Hudson Terminal is east of the current station doesn't seem appropriate.

With regard to Hudson Terminal (am inserting here):Djflem (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Burks, Edward C. (July 7, 1971). "New PATH Station Opens Downtown" (PDF). New York Times. p. 74. Retrieved May 30, 2010.

Brennan, Joseph. "Hudson Terminal". Abandoned Stations. www.columbia.edu. Retrieved March 1, 2012.

Dunlap, David W. (October 26, 2008), "Another Ghost from Ground Zero's Past Fades Away", New York Times, retrieved March 1, 2012

And regarding your other concern that the WTC line "continues to separate stations," this is simply not true. The File:BSicon BL.svg icon (and those like it) are used to show connections between two stations. The legend, which is linked from the PATH line map, describes two stations connected by such a line to be "connected but separate," which seems appropriate for this case. — C16SH (speak up) 03:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Dey Street Passageway connects the WTC to the Fulton Center, therefore for correctness and completeness all lines serving the later would then need to be included in the proposed diagram. That would only add more information & (IMO) necessary clutter, further distracting from what portends to be a PATH service line map/diagram. The proposed template has more information about OTHER than what should necessarily be the FOCUS, the PATH system itself.

(Additionally, a former passageway under 33rd between 6th & 7th avenues (at Hotel Pennsylvania) connects the 7th Ave IRT/33rd Street (34th St/Herald Square) stations. Known as the Pennsylvania Passageway or Gimbels Passageway [1][2][3][4]. While not in use, it was originally part of the PATH/PRR system, and would likely need be addressed as a historical connection to Penn Station for the sake of completeness and correctness.)Djflem (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Copied from section below: — C16SH (speak up) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) To go back to the first section of this talk page, I think there are exceptions to consensus that could be made here given two things: (1) that it's a template for an entire rail system, so it's bound to be somewhat busy, and (2) it's part of a vastly complicated Lower Manhattan transit network. There's a template to specifically show this mess. Thoughts?

The exisitng template is not so unique: it's a single map for five lines in one rail system, which the title clearly establishes: PATH (rail system). It is not about the PATH/NJT/MTA rail network. And yes indeed, Lower Manhattan transit network is vastly complicated, and as seen in Template:Lower Manhattan transit, and would be way to much to include in the PATH template. Selecting only two lines using File:BSicon BL.svg and not others is incomplete and therefore, incorrect.Djflem (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Morris & Essex Lines never stopped at Manhattan Transfer.Djflem (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Station inclusion

Hi all- I would like to propose removing some stations from the diagram, as they were not operational or even extant at the time PATH began operating as a service in 1962. I also propose creating a separate H&M Railroad template to preserve that information. While these stations (28th St, 19th St, Hudson Term., Manhattan Transfer, and the Park Pl branch) certainly belong in a H&M template, I do not believe they belong in a PATH template, since they have never seen PATH service. As far as I am aware, this is the standard for inclusion in a rail service template. WMSR (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC) edited 04:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Was actually just thinking about this recently given the recent edits, I support it.— C16SH (speak up) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, considering a few points:

• PANYNJ acquired the H&M in 1962. The WTC and its station were opened in 1971. Certainly, Hudson Terminal was used as a PATH station, and remained in operation during construction of its replacement, which was "nearby" but re-aligned to the west.

Burks, Edward C. (July 7, 1971). "New PATH Station Opens Downtown" (PDF). New York Times. p. 74. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Brennan, Joseph. "Hudson Terminal". Abandoned Stations. www.columbia.edu. Retrieved March 1, 2012.

• A survey of Category:United States commuter railroad templates clearly shows that former stations are included in line maps. There seems to a consensus and a standard to include such information. Deletion here would not follow that established practice.
• At this time there is no separate Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, but rather a redirect to PATH, that because the history of the H&M and of PATH is included in the PATH article. Since that history is in the PATH article, a diagram which shows the historical stations should be included in it. If there were a H&M Fork (there may an argument for that), and another service line map diagram might be appropirate. But elimination of historical stations before that time would diminish the completeness of the current PATH article, which is disservice to the reader & quality of Wikipedia. Djflem (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

PATH is not a commuter railroad and is not part of that category. It's a rapid transit system, which instead places it in Category:United States rapid transit templates. This is also a unique template in that it's a single map for what is actually five lines, which is not super common in this context. To go back to the first section of this talk page, I think there are exceptions to consensus that could be made here given two things: (1) that it's a template for an entire rail system, so it's bound to be somewhat busy, and (2) it's part of a vastly complicated Lower Manhattan transit network. There's a template to specifically show this mess. Thoughts? — C16SH (speak up) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

H&M/PATH is a railroad subject to federal standards. It generally functions and is perceived as a rapid-transit system, and is treated as such on Wikipedia. A cursory review of Category:United States rapid transit templates reveals that indeed many older rapid transit systems (as opposed to relatively modern ones) have stations which have closed and are included in the templates (for example, Template:PATCO Speedline, Category:Chicago 'L' line templates) as does Category:Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Inclusion given the extensive history section would support keeping historical stations so readers can better understand what the article is describing.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

All of those examples illustrate that inclusion is only warranted for station that existed at the time the current service existed. For example, Template:Pink Line (CTA) only shows stations that existed and saw service since the Pink Line began service in 2006. Stations closed before then are not included, while stations that were closed more recently remain on the map. Since PATH service dates back to 1962, stations which were closed before then ought not be included either. WMSR (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not create an H&M routemap to embed in the history section of PATH (rail system) that is include stations that closed before 1962? I don't think it would be inappropriate to have two line diagrams given the distinction.— C16SH (speak up) 20:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, Hudson Terminal would be included, leaving one now demolished station on a truncated line in the template, but not others or re-alignments. PATH did not begin operating in 1962; ownership of the H&M changed and it was, very simply, re-named. What would be the logical way to visually demonstrate the extensive history covered in the article? What would be the logic to include Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL proposed station (which whiffs of Wikipedia:Recentism? Djflem (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but new templates seem like a solution looking for a problem.Djflem (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Hudson Terminal should remain, as it was a PATH station. Proposed stations are generally included in diagrams as well (especially in this case, where funding has been allocated). I think the most logical way to address the history is to have a separate routemap for the H&M. If you look at Category:Chicago 'L' line templates, you will find several different historical templates for various routes and services, including 11 separate historical Loop templates. WP:Recentism does not apply here at all, as it has to do with the text of of an article giving undue weight to current events, and H&M ceased operations more than 50 years ago. The proposed changes fall completely within the accepted conventions for rapid transit route diagrams. WMSR (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1962 is an artificial date. The rail system never seized operations. Its name was changed. The current template shows both contemporary stations and historical stations of that system. Keeping Hudson Terminal, and not others is arbitrary. Historical stations, ones that actually existed should certainly bear as much weight as ones that are recently proposed and have never existed other than on paper (and may or may not be built). Because of the size of the system they all fit well into the current template and support the subject of the article: the rail(road) system once called H&M and now named PATH. Additional templates introducing information not covered in the body of the text serve to distract rather than suppport what it is about.(Incidentally,Category:Chicago 'L' line templates do have current lines in which historical stations are shown.)Djflem (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about lines or services? None of the service templates show stations which were closed prior to the inauguration of that service. It is true that it is the same physical railroad as the H&M, but it is a different operator, and the article is titled PATH, not H&M. This could be said of literally any railroad; this is why Amtrak line maps do not show old interurban stations that Amtrak trains never serviced. New ownership is not an artificial date; it is significant and concrete, and convention on these templates is that a "reset" of stations is warranted when a new service begins. The Port Authority is not the same as H&M; that is what is being discussed here, not whether the two services share physical tracks. WMSR (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What is being discussed is the Template:PATH line map, not the Template:PATH service map. As has been earlier mentioned/established here PATH is considered a mass-transit system (despite its FRA status) and therefore not part of Category:Amtrak railway line navigational boxes or Category:United States commuter railroad templates, the latter of which does include historical stations. (& potentially 'could/should' include the PATH templates as well as Category:United States rapid transit templates). The PATH re-naming of entire existing & complete H&M system is quite different from creation of new rail networks from the takeover, combination, & consolidation of bankrupt railroads by semi-public corporations.Djflem (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how much the system changed following the takeover by PANYNJ, it still constitutes a new system. The extent of the change does not really play a role in this debate. And there is no consensus at all that PATH should be considered a commuter railroad. It exhibits no characteristics of a commuter railroad other than FRA oversight, which is purely bureaucratic. Regardless, every service diagram either of us has brought up follows the convention that only stations that still exist upon inauguration of a new service should be included in that service's diagram. This should be no exception. WMSR (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

1. There is a clear distinction between a rail line and the services provided on it. Please do not continue to confuse them.

2. Wikipedia does treat PATH as mass transit system and I do not contest that. (But, FYI, FRA regulation has more influence that an administrative one. It effects safety, employees roles/requirements, physical relationships to other systems, plus, plus.)

3. I have pointed out categories of line maps, not service diagrams (except Template:PATH service map but that was to point out that service is different from a line (Template:PATH line map) so take note of the difference.)

4. A name change does not constitute a new rail system, despite the insistence that the services provided by the carrier have changed. They are distinct.

5. Your proposal is an exception:

The New York City Transit Authority is from 1953 and it's parent organization, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, from 1968.

Following suggested logic and applying "consistency" to mass tranist systems would necessitate that 18th Street station (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) for ::example, being removed from Template:IRT Lexington Avenue Line since that station was not in operation when the line was incorporated into the

city-wide, and later metro-region, agencies, the new owner/carriers. Would you choose '53 or '68 as the cut off? Are you prepared to take your proposal to a wider public? It would involve a huge amount of work since the aforementioned is one of many examples that would require a change so as to remain consistent. (Likley, the re-naming & re-structering of the Staten Island Railway would require special review.Djflem (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2019

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: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Template:PATH line map → Template:H&M Railroad – This template contains stations that did not exist by the time PATH was inaugurated as a service. I propose this template be moved to H&M Railroad and a new template be created which shows only present and former PATH stations. WMSR (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the above discussion Template talk:PATH line map#Station inclusion covers much of relevance to this proposal.Djflem (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. WMSR (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a Template:PATH line map not a Template:PATH service map. There is a big distinction between a line and the services provided on it.Djflem (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This deserves no special exception whatsoever. Various other rail and commuter rail lines list former stations, and they too were subject to ownership changes and name changes. Cards84664 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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.