Talk:G (New York City Subway service)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleG (New York City Subway service) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 20, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the New York City Subway G train is the only non-shuttle service that does not run through Manhattan?

Extension to Church Avenue[edit]

That Daily News article does mention the extension and implicitly defines Church Avenue as the new terminal. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend service to Forest Hills[edit]

Since it is cut on a semi-permanent basis. I'm considering changing around the text to reflect this ([1]). Any concerns, objections? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updated[edit]

G map needs to be updated to show the extension to Church Avenue. Acps110 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to show discontinuation of service to 71/Continental Coasterlover1994 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done R36 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Service[edit]

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#G Service for centralized discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G service Crosstown Line local[edit]

What the hell, I did say that right stuff. It is nessacary. D:< from Mc. Nsiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The G does NOT use the full Crosstown Line anymore. The portion north of Court Square is not used in revenue service. The Crosstown line extends from south of Queens Plaza to the interlocking north of Bergen Street. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Could you STOP. The G is not N/A on the Crosstown. I'm saying the right thing. D:<--24.189.168.173 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TRACKS column is N/A because there are only two tracks. There is no need to make a distinction between local and express because that's not an option with only two tracks. The G SERVICE is described as a fully local service making all stops elsewhere in the article, so there is no need to say that the IND Crosstown Line tracks are local. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The old version of the lead (which I reverted) stated that "It is the only non-shuttle service in the system that does not serve Manhattan, and therefore, suffers from frequent disruptions and poor service." This does not make sense because it does not explain how not entering Manhattan causes poor service. The source indicated that it had poor service, but did not indicate its location as a cause. Listroiderbobtalk'tribs▆ 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often said that the MTA provides poor service with frequent disruptions because it is the only train that does not enter Manhattan (if the G entered Manhattan, it would definitely be running more frequently with full length cars), which in turn angers riders [2]

Sandy Fix&Fortify info addition[edit]

Should the information regarding the station closing on the first three stations be added to the article? I added with accurate information, but after close examinations on the edit history, I saw it caused a bit of tension. Therefore, I reverted the article back to its last version. In my opinion, it should be added because it is significant towards one of the subway tunnel crossings and the addition of the temporary OOS (out of system) transfer at Broadway with Lorimer Street on the JMZ lines is also a point of interest. Until this dispute is settled, the article should not have the Fix&Fortify info in it.

Resources: http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/g-greenpoint-tube-set-close-next-friday-night-five-weeks-fixfortify-sandy and http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/G_GreenpointTubes_FixFortifyMap.pdf .

I know this doesn't concern this issue at all, but it is worth noticing that the G runs entirely in Brooklyn (for now). DePeeper (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to include this because it is only five weeks long and will be over before you know it, so we're not going to waste time making major changes to the article only to revert them all come September 2. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or travel guide. As for the free transfer to Lorimer Street, it's not that important to mention either since we don't know if it is only a temporary thing or will be made permanent when service is restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.139.88 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R46 G trains, Hoyt-Schermerhorn Derailment[edit]

I've noticed that two G trains have been supplemented with R46 cars after the Hoyt-Schermerhorn derailment. These two trains were most likely taken from a R46 F train, as there were F train notifications in each car. However, I do not have any sourcing other than me and my camera, and I only saw these two trains a few days after the incident, so this may not be a big deal at all. I just wanted to bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPunger (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on G (New York City Subway service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on G (New York City Subway service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:G (New York City Subway service)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


On the whole close to passing, but a significant issue with one of the images needs to be addressed:

  • "in the future, the Crosstown Line will become accessible" - this is WP:CRYSTAL, we can't speculate what will happen in the future.
    • One word was missing, changing the meaning of the sentence. The Crosstown Line platform at Court Square will become ADA accessible as part of the 2015-2019 MTA Capital Program. That is known.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think JoeKorner can be used as WP:RS
    • It is reliable and it is factually accurate. It cites its sources, "Adapted from ERA NY Division Bulletins October and November 1968." The website is factually accurate. However, I will look for another source anyway.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran IAbot.

6a images: The image "Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday" is also provided in a reference to Flickr, it's copyright status on Flickr is "All rights reserved" - please clarify this issue. Seraphim System (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That image was not copyrighted. I don't know why it said all rights reserved.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the image? Seraphim System (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is from an eBay listing. There is no copyright anywhere on the image.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: Thanks for conducting this review. @Kew Gardens 613: Thank you for doing most of the required changes while I was offline for the weekend. I think just to be safe, we can remove the non-free image about service adjustments and add a link to it instead. There's probably a Commons policy that allows these types of images, but it's unclear since there's substantial text in that image. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is already a reference tag to flickr. Assuming, the copyright information on flickr is correct and the copyright belongs to the account holder. But with flickr, we can't really be sure. It may be best to remove the link also, since it does not seem to be possible to identify the copyright holder with certainty with the information we have. Seraphim System (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should remove either. If there was a copyright holder it would be the New York City Transit Authority. The user clearly isn't the NYCTA. Since NYCTA is not claiming copyright, I think that it would be okay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-New-York-City-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Sign-Vignelli-BMT-IND-NYCTA-/132228373523?hash=item1ec96cdc13:g:D3sAAOSwa~BYN3f- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-New-York-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Train-Line/272682280980?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D41375%26meid%3D893d57d0791d45b3a6e5284738177933%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D282442422816 Here are the two listings.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether the photo can be considered copyrighted. I have had this discussion with a couple of admins (over a different photograph) in the past, and I think generally we consider photos copyrighted, but sometimes we don't if they are photos of non-copyrighted work, like a photo of the Mona Lisa. I've asked Diannaa for advice, as this is not something I want to guess on. Seraphim System (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are File:New York City Transit Authority Service Adjustment Poster 1977.jpg and File:Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday, Aug. 30.jpg. They require two copyright tags: one for the photograph and one for the underlying document. The source in each case is an eBay listing. The status of the underlying document is probably PD-US-no notice as stated, but whoever took the photos and uploaded them to eBay is the copyright holder of the photographs. I have nominated both images for deletion on the Commons so we will have to wait for the outcome there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they cannot be saved on wikipedia, couldn't they still be used as references?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because per WP:LINKVIO, we are not allowed to link to copyvio works. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, if I sent an email to the two eBay users that photographed the two posters and asked them whether they copyrighted them and if they said no, would that be acceptable?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I think using them as citations would be okay. I have archived the eBay one here as they go away after a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if it could be referenced. I was under the belief that the image was acceptable because it was of a document, and that document was not copyrighted. I can't see the image in that. Also, I asked them just in case. It might take a day or so for them to respond. Thanks again for your work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Perhaps the one that is totally flat perhaps would not be creative enough for a separate copyright on the photo, but the one with the tilted orientation would be copyrightable in my opinion. Wait and see what the Commons admins have to say; I'm sure they've seen thousands of such images and will be able to give you a solid answer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the owners of the images said that it was fine. [3]

Ok thank you epicgenius sorry about the delay, I was waiting for resolution of the image situation. Regarding this line "in the future, the Crosstown Line station will become accessible." — I understand the MTA may have promised this, but it is still WP:CRYSTAL, but otherwise it looks good. Seraphim System (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tense. The MTA has provided funding but no work has been done, and the article now reflect this. epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on G (New York City Subway service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=1202180824"