User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/August

Steam-era Culver Line

Years ago, NE2 wrote a list of former stations on the Culver Line dating back to when it was a steam line owned by the Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad. Any chance some of those stations on the branch from 5th Avenue and 36th Street were on the demolished Culver Shuttle? ----DanTD (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I have a city directory from the mid-thirties if that would help in the research. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, give it a shot. I don't know what a directory from the mid-1930's can say about the line between 1875 and 1918, but if it works, go ahead. ----DanTD (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry scotty

Hi Scotty =- excuse me, I find such issues so anoying - somtimes you just can't believe what occurs - I am going offline - but there is no dispute about the connection - tomorrow I will post you the diffs, regards - Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked...

[1] Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was curious to know how the connection was made between the two accounts because I'm involved in a discussion of revising Clean Start policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

E-mail?

Did you remove the e-mail this user function from your user page, or did you never have it? Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

R32 and C train article

Your are copying sentences directly from the New York Times article and putting them into quotes. That is not recommended for Wikipedia. Paraphrasing, rewording of sentences and information into your own words while keeping the ideas intact, is preferred on Wikipedia. For example, the article says the C train "arrive only once every 10 minutes at peak periods." The use of the word "only" in that sentence implies that its service is considered low by the Straphangers' standards. The article does not mention anything about "frequent service delays" as you put for the C train article, which is why I am reverting that. Also, this paragraph you put on the R32 article:

The R32 cars run only on the C train, which has ranked last in a survey by the Straphangers Campaign's State of the Subways Report Card for three years in a row. The survey found that "C trains break down three times as often as the average subway car, arrive only once every 10 minutes at peak periods, and have the least understandable announcements in the system." The Times called the C train cars "a dreary reminder to passengers of an earlier subterranean era," and said that "time has taken a toll" on the trains.

implies that the R32s are the only reason why the C ranked worst in the system or is hated by riders. That is not the case. Car fleet has no impact on breakdown rates, scheduled service, or announcement quality. All other subway cars will break down or provide bad announcements and it is the MTA's decision on how frequent trains should run on lines, so there is no need to emphasize on the R32 article the reasons why the C ranks worst because they are not to blame for that. Also, car assignments change frequently and without warning, so that article can quickly become dated. It is not possible to saya that the R32s will continue to run on the C until 2017. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. In the R32 article, there is no reason on earth to omit the Straphangers Campaign finding that "The survey found that "C trains break down three times as often as the average subway car arrive only once every 10 minutes at peak periods, and have the least understandable announcements in the system." Your rationalizations simply don't make sense. This is an article in the New York Times about the R32 subway car, for heaven's sake. Additionally, this is significant information that deserves its own paragraph.

In the C-train article, there is nothing in the New York Times article that justifies your inserting the words "low scheduled service."

I'm not going to edit war over you concerning this nonsense; this goes to DR. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

assume good faith etc

Look at the history of the R32 car and you will see this [2]. I am a trainspotter and live in NYC - all of the articles for the NYC subway, LIRR, Metro North etc and all of their rolling stock are in my watchlist even if I haven't edited all of them. As are all of the RFC watch list (in fact, I have closed RFCs am not involved with). It is a coincidence we have a shared interest, but instead of seeing this as a positive you see it as a negative.

I suggest that that part of my editor review be stricken, because you are clearly failing to look at the big picture and failing to assume good faith.

In addition, I am not against your position, I am explaining policy as it stands: if a reliable source is unclear or ambiguous, you look for another reliable source to verify it. That is how it is done. Ask anyone.--Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you've edited the article before I'll strike it. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do appreciate your other comments.--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On the R32, I recommend that you take into consideration that there is no dispute that the R32 is the only train on the C line. I've added more text from the Straphangers Campaign study which I think should rectify matters. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no dispute, what was disputed is that the rolling stock itself is the cause of the problems in the C line, and that there is general negative view of the R32. I'll look at the text, but yes verification from a source like the Straphangers Campaign should be sufficient - if it does verify it.--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The quote from the Straphangers Campaign has been boiled down to the reference to mechancial breakdowns. I agree that infrequent running of the trains and poor voice announcements probably doesn't belong in the R32 article, but mechanical breakdowns are directly related to the car, obviously. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep that should do it... Been years since I commuted on the C (after having to hop on the Franklin S - talk about crap) but my memory of the rolling stock as an issue was minimal compared to the management issues of the line, in particular the lack of coordination in the Fulton line with the A that leads to delays, and the atrocious conditions of the signaling equipment in lower Manhattan that makes the L seem reasonable ;). In fact the Franklin S has crappier stock, and looks awful too with all the crappy signs jury-rigged etc. The MTA is such a mess anyways, it hasn't been a world-class system in decades - and its not age, the London Underground is way older and way better.--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)