Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I'm not even going to bother examining the Post or Daily News links. They're both tabloids and obviously not RS and so irrelevant for this discussion. They may be acceptable sources for reporting sports scores, or when publishing columns by reputed experts, but are otherwise generally best avoided, and should be removed from BLPs on sight. Cheers, ] (]) 05:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother examining the Post or Daily News links. They're both tabloids and obviously not RS and so irrelevant for this discussion. They may be acceptable sources for reporting sports scores, or when publishing columns by reputed experts, but are otherwise generally best avoided, and should be removed from BLPs on sight. Cheers, ] (]) 05:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
:These are not ''my'' sources, but the ones on the history article, some of which do refer to the pre-unification system. But none of them, as far as I could find, make a case distinction for the the before/after system, and even those referring to the modern system are still mostly useing lowercase. Can you find some that do cap it? I think I only saw one (but not all are easily visible, so you may find more). And throwing out the newspapers why? Don't they represent usage in reliable sources? If not, take them off the article. ] (]) 00:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:These are not ''my'' sources, but the ones on the history article, some of which do refer to the pre-unification system. But none of them, as far as I could find, make a case distinction for the the before/after system, and even those referring to the modern system are still mostly useing lowercase. Can you find some that do cap it? I think I only saw one (but not all are easily visible, so you may find more). And throwing out the newspapers why? Don't they represent usage in reliable sources? If not, take them off the article. ] (]) 00:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
=====Notifications, alerts, canvassing, etc.=====
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 13:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
Note that all of these Wikiprojects had already been notified via their automatic article alerts. There's no need for this extra late canvassing. ] (]) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
===Is any of the opposition based in guideline, policy, or sources?===
===Is any of the opposition based in guideline, policy, or sources?===
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
Stephen Harrison (March 28, 2018). "If You See Something, Write Something". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2018. Last year the general article for the "New York City Subway" received an average of 1,750 daily page views.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria1995, Kxie16 (article contribs).
To add the "Full and partial subway closures"
Before 2011 there have been some full subway closures for NYC transit strikes (1-13 January 1966, 1-11 April 1980, 20-22 December 2005) and blackouts (9 November 1965, 13-14 July 1977, 14-16* August 2003). I think that it is necessary to add them.
Friday 15 August at 9:30 pm the power was restored to the entire city, but only Saturday morning 16 August around 6:00 am, the MTA resumed services throughout the City.
Rfc about station layouts
I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves." There is more context for the declined close request here.
If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About the articles for the various NYC subway stations, I am not sure whether there should be station layouts depicting the platforms for the stations, for Misplaced Pages is not a guidebook or travel guide. Should we remove the station layouts sections (but probably keep the track layouts diagrams) from the current NYC subway stations' articles?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per previous discussion of the issue, and because WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't really apply here, but see below. The policy states that Misplaced Pages is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like, and it might be useful to remove simple layouts only served by one route. However, the NYC subway generally includes complex stations with three or four tracks, e.g. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station, and these tables are useful in visually depicting text that is described and referenced more thoroughly in the prose. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE to do this, especially if the station's layout is complicated.
Unlike the Singapore MRT, at least 80% of NYC subway station articles have referenced layouts, and more than 10% of NYC Subway station articles are good articles. Furthermore, unlike Singapore, the NYC Subway typically has an intricate service pattern, with two or three services to a platform (e.g. Bowling Green station). Removing this will not help the reader understand the prose part of the article, and is actually detrimental in my opinion; e.g. in the Hoyt-Schermerhorn example, it would be even more confusing to note which trains use which tracks. Note that for other systems, this is not the case, and it would be beneficial to remove the station layouts for these articles. Furthermore, it would be worth looking into whether we should remove accessibility information and other elements that may resemble guidebooks.
@Epicgenius: Many editors in that discussion also pointed out that station layouts should only be in articles of big complex stations, and should be removed from normal 2 platform stations. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
1.02 editor, removing station layouts from simple 2 platform stations (served by only one route, which are not part of station complexes) would probably be fine. But it also depends on the context. If the 2 platform station has an unusual, reliably sourced feature (e.g. Broadway station (IND Crosstown Line)'s unused platform level) it would probably be better to leave it. Also, the NYC Subway, unlike almost all other systems, does not have a {{S-line}} type diagram in the infobox showing the next stops and the destinations of the trains. That purpose is kind of served by the station layout. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ambivalent. On one hand, i agree that illustrating the more complicated stations can be useful. On the other hand, many of the stations are simple enough not to need them; for example it really doesn't add anything to Hunters Point Avenue station except bloat. I also find the current format rather mediocre. I've always disliked the way the the levels are arranged with them stacked vertically, but each layer is itself a top-down view. I also think some of the details are excessive and clearly travel guide like, such as saying on which side the doors of the train will open (and the "Island platform, doors will open on the left, right" phrasing is really awkward). I think the idea of illustrating the layouts of complex stations (and especially station complexes) is useful, but not all stations need them, and the current templates are not ideal. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Track layout, Remove Station layout. I am in favor of keeping the track layouts but not the station layouts. I think when it comes to illustrating the layout of the station the simpler track layout, which only shows platforms, tracks and where they lead to. This is especially helpful for most NYCS stations due to the complex nature of services and lines. The big station layouts however contain too much unencyclopedic information to not fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, and lack the ability to show the station as part of a line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong Keep - evidently beating a dead horse, per Epicgenius's links. This is a longstanding and valuable tool for learning about and understanding the layout and workings of a train station, likely more useful and used for that than by passengers trying to get somewhere. ɱ(talk)02:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with this, but it dosent cover for the fact that the template has unneeded details as pointed out by Oknazevad. Once removed, the remaining details can be represented in the track layout template, rendering the station layout template redundant.1.02 editor (T/C) 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, stations are not just tracks, the station layouts display much more information: which services use which tracks, which directions the tracks are used for, alignment with major roads, and presence of overpasses or underpasses. Ideally the platform layout template would evolve to something more streamlined, and I could see it perhaps with indicators of other station functions - the waiting room, concourse, ticket windows/machines, etc., to act as a station map without needing to create so many separate images. ɱ(talk)05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Stations are not just tracks, but i dont see how some of the information in the station layout makes it into an encyclopedia. A look at the station layout of Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station reveals a large swath of elevator information, information on the steep gradient of a passageway, and as mentioned before, information on which side doors will open. Surely this is not considered encyclopedic information right? Furthermore, most layouts of regular local stations can be removed outright at the graphical layout can be easily represented in prose. Although i agree that layouts should be kept for more complex stations like Times Square, i cant see for myself how it helps to 'map' the station since everything is taken out of place and put on top of each other on a 2D page (surely the station is not like that in real life). 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: Passageway between IND platforms and rest of the complex is a steep grade'
1.02 editor, the accessibility information can be removed and replaced with a simple indicator of whether the station is accessible or not. I don't see how door-opening information violates NOTTRAVEL. The wikiproject already agreed it violated the guideline if the diagram said "Doors will open on the left for local trains and on the right for express trains". However, stating "Doors open on the left or right" (as opposed to Platform not in use) is a simple fact that falls under WP:BLUE, rather than travel guide information. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, like I said the graphic at Times Square/42nd or anywhere is clearer and more simple than anything paragraphs of text would do; a picture is worth a thousand words. Visualizing the station layout is very beneficial to supplement prose about different lines and access points, and also beneficial to readers simply looking at the photos and graphics. Yes, it still needs to be smaller, clearer, and less Web 1.0, but those are problems for another time and another discussion. ɱ(talk)16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If i want to visualize the station i would use a 3D diagram. The only thing a person with no background information can infer from the current one is which levels each line sit on and the platforms of each line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 00:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
1.02 editor, short of a 3D diagram (which can only be made as an image), the current tables are our next best option. Having the visualization of the levels is better than no visualization at all. epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes but this is more about the layout of the station. The following and terminal station should definitely be included, preferably through templates in the infobox.
Given the complexity of service patterns, having just one service with multiple patterns is extremely difficult to display in the infobox. With multiple services (e.g. this), it becomes nearly impossible to read. It is not editor-friendly or reader-friendly. This isn't the case with the station layout tables, where a few rows clearly display the adjacent stations in a readable format. The relative locations of mezzanines and the ground is also easier to visualize, although these are also included and referenced in the prose. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment This is not to delete the track layout diagrams, but only the station layouts (that specify the exits, concourse and the platforms). However, if you wish, yall can consider keeping the platform level instead of including the other levels, and put it under 'platform layout' than 'station layout'. It will be preferable to use the adjacent stations template, which will be easier to read than using the station layout to see the adjacent stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
ZKang123, keeping the platform layout might be a good idea. The section would still be named "station layout" since the prose still talks about the overall layout of the station. epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Some possibilities: it was recently extended c. 1.65 miles plus a bit more to account for the turn plus the other turn from 7th and 59th to x feet east of 6th "and 63rd" which is geometrically impossible to be under 0.25 miles cause Pythagorean Theorem. Another possibility: What you measure. Things like are the routes with 2 dead ends measured from the ends of the train or from the ends of the passenger parts (which is only millitrainlengths shorter) or from the center of the train since you only move that distance when you ride in the same seat. That would make each route up to >0.11 miles shorter. Or if any ends that are literal loops aren't all banned to passengers yet (I've ridden one even after they banned that, no one knew, don't know if you can even get fined for that or if even cops wouldn't care like how they don't about the no breakdancing or homeless with body odor rules) then did/do those extra few mile tenths count cause they don't go anywhere and the journey itself is so boring, featureless and underground that hardly anyone would want to touristicate it. Hopefully another editor with better subway knowledge will come along and say what's the correct mileage and how that number is measured. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of those are wrong having taken the outdated figure from this article. None of those are actual MTA figures, which the current, up-to-date reference actually is. And that ref clearly states 262 when the 14 miles of the SIR is included (which they do because it's managed by the Department of Subways as though it were a subway line). When you subtract 14 from 262 (a routine calculation), the number of New York City Subway route miles is 248. 245 was the old figure from before the opening of the 7 train extension to Hudson yards (approx 1 mile) and the Second Avenue Subway (approx 2 miles). oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it measured from the center of the train or is the half of the train closer to the end of the line also included? Is the part near the one-way station of Bleeker Street counted as the average of the uptown and downtown lengths or are these considered separate one-way routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes the 245 is clearly a very obsolete pre-7 expansion number, 300 feet times nearly every terminal (are there any used loop ends left?) is well over a mile though (whether a note showing the methodology is added to the article or not I don't care)
I was under the impression that non-revenue miles don't count unless noted, why should they count? Some ends-of-the-lines go so deep that 600 foot trains can switch from track to track and return on the opposite side of the terminal, or possibly loop like ex-South Ferry or the "green line" loop (come to think of it I think Bleeker was just platforms that didn't line up, not a split)
Also, when does a branch start adding route miles? When the tunnels become fully separate or els lose all physical connection? When the first rail edge deviates? Somewhere in between like when the average track stops overlapping the one it's turning from or when enough clearance for 2 trains starts?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Because the 7 train extension opened in 2015, not 2017. So in 2015 the number increased one mile, from 245 to 246, then an additional two miles with the opening of the Second Ave Subway in 2017 to the current 248 mile figure. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I remember watching trains go beyond the last station to reach the opposite track, are you telling me those chains count for route miles even though they likely don't count for revenue track? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes. But that's not the issue in this discussion. The issue is that the 245 mile route length figure is outdated, being it doesn't account for the extension of the 7 train or the Second Avenue Subway. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, @Forza NYCFC !n:, remember that this is route miles, not track miles. So any changes in service patterns can also affect it. Note the track miles figure in the same chart in the source goes with the additions in 2015 and 2017. Changes to service patterns because of budget issues in 2010 (cutting the W and merging the M with the V), temporary closures because of Hurricane Sandy (the H train) and preparations for the Second Ave Subway (the return of the W) all affect the route miles number. The plain fact, though, is that as of this date (Super Bowl Sunday, February 7, 2021) the New York City Subway has 248 route miles, and no other figure should appear in the article as it contains the current info. oknazevad (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so if they brought back the 9 train would the route miles suddenly increase by the entire length of the lines the 1 uses? (IRT Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Broadway Line etc, all those old-fashioned pre-unification sounding names). That's not how I imagined it worked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
No. From wikipedia: The system length of a metro network is the sum of the lengths of all routes in the rail network in kilometers or miles. Each route is counted only once, regardless of how many lines pass over it, and regardless of whether it is single-track or multi-track, single carriageway or dual carriageway. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to know how many exact rail route mails has the NY subway? I know that they were 245 miles before expansions of the 7 line (1,5 miles) and the Q line (1,8 miles), therefore the total should be 248,3 miles (399,600 km). We know that the new 1,8 mile tunnel extends under Second Avenue from 63rd Street to 96th Street (https://www.wsp.com/en-SE/insights/new-york-opens-its-second-avenue-subway). But since 2017 it is in operation also a new small segment under the Central Park from 57St -7Th Av station to Lexington Av-63St station. What is the lenght of this tract without calculation the very small part that overlaps with the F line? If it is at least 0,3 miles, the new total should be 248,6 miles and therefore OVER 400 km (a very important and symbolic number). Is it right? Thanks for a possible reply. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Bench controversy
I had added the following text to the lead of this article, but it was reverted as not being in the right place. Please find the appropriate place to put this text. This is a pretty big deal and is already hit at least one mainstream media source and is blowing up social media.
In February 2020, the New York City Subway controversially removed benches from several stations in an effort to reduce instances of homeless persons sleeping on them, which in the era of the COVID 19 pandemic was considered to be unsanitary. However, this move drew considerable backlash from riders who allege that the removal of the benches amounts to disenfranchising people with disabilities and senior citizens.
ONE OF THE EXAMPLES: Just a few blocks from the 96th Street subway station along the 1/2/3 lines sits the abandoned 91st Street Subway station. It was in service since 1904 and was part of the first subway. But with a 200 foot platform, the station was retired in 1959 for similar reasons as the abandoned Worth Street and 18th Street stations. With the extension of neighboring subway stations–96th Street in this case–some stations simply became too close to each other. With one entrance to the 96th Street station just 100 feet from 93rd Street, there wasn’t much use for the 91st Street stop anymore but you can still see it when you’re riding the 1 train.
Actually, I just added that line to the stations section of this article in response to this comment. Peter was right that there was no mention of the closed stations at all in this main article. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
History section
While acknowledging the existence of a separate article, I really am bothered by the fact that this article's history section falls into the old trap of spending an entire paragraph on Alfred Beach's short-lived amusement park ride and then entirely skips two decades of the building of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Els only to tell us that the blizzard of 1888 showed their inadequacies. It's poor writing because it doesn't introduce the Els or their importance, and it ignores that they, not Beach's experiment, are the actual predecessors of the subway system as we know it. Especially since some part of the modern system are the exact same structures (most notably the curve on the Jamaica Line at Crescent Street that is the oldest structure in the system, and predates the first Subway). In short: Beach overrated, Els underreported. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
The signage caps "Station", but our article title 23rd Street station does not, per WP:NCCAPS. Some signs with sentences use lowercase subway. Here "New York City Transit" is the proper name of an org.
It has been 10 years (see Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 3#Requested move) since we last looked at the capitalization of "Subway" here, and found no consensus to change it, even though editors who looked at the evidence agreed that sources use lowercase for this. The Opposers mostly cited signs, maps, equipment, and logos, which it was pointed out are conventionally title case, so not relevant to the criteria in our capitalization policy, or claimed that New York City Subway is a proper name, ignoring the evidence in sources. Some even claimed they want to follow the MTA itself, who operate the system, but didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks."). Titles of maps are almost the only place that that they use "New York City Subway".
Look at File:23 St 8 Av SB entrance.JPG used on 23rd Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line). The station entrance sign in the photo uses capitalized Station (because signs typically use title case) while the Misplaced Pages article title uses sentence case (per policy WP:NCCAPS (ever since we adopted WP:USSTATION, bringing station article titles into agreement with policy). It's the same with Subway: map titles, signs, logos on trains, etc. use title case and cap it. But WP policy says use sentence case, as informed by use in sentences in sources, which overwhelmingly use lowercase subway. See book n-gram stats:
Of course, some signs with complete sentences use sentence case, as in File:New York subway sign assaulting.jpg, with "Assaulting MTA New York City Transit subway personnel is a felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison.", in which "New York City Transit" is an actual proper name of an organization, while subway is not.
There was also a lot of grousing about how much work would need to be done to fix this. It would mean hundreds of moves and thousands of edits, and has probably only gotten worse over time. But that's really not a big problem, as we've seen in other case corrections that touched thousands of articles; it just takes some time and care with some tools like AWB.
Before that last RM discussion in 2011, we had a brief discussion of the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Proper names?, where my detailed rationale with evidence got no pushback. It's still relevant, worth a look.
If you want to comment, please first be familiar with what our title policy is. The lead sentence at WP:NCCAPS says: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. And please also comment on the evidence about whether Subway occurs capitalized in mid-sentence.
The article History of the New York City Subway has a lot of references, across lots of time, that do not cap subway, and far as I can find, none of its sources that cap subway (most don't use the phrase New York City Subway or subway at all, since that's not really the official name of anything):
mta.info "The New York City subway system has 472 stations..."
history.com "the New York City subway soon became the largest American system"
An illustration of how the MTA styles "subway" and "subway system" in lowercase, and uses the terms interchangeably for the same system. They don't treat "New York City Subway" as a proper name, with or without "system" in their public-facing info. See at Riding the subway, linked from New York City Transit, which is a proper name.
We have to exclude examples with "subway system," because the "New York City subway system" is not the "New York City Subway system." The former is the subway system of New York City, the latter is the system of the New York City Subway. Vcohen (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If you are right and those refer to different things, we might be able to find evidence of that distinction. I can't see it; can you? I'm pretty sure that "New York City subway system" and "New York City Subway system" and "and "New York City Subway System", and even ""New York City Subway" all refer to the same subway system. Part of the reason I think so is that the mixed-caps "Subway system" version is rare compared to either the uppercase "Subway System" or lower "subway system" versions. If you want to exclude the odd mixed-case version, OK. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Survey
Strongest possible oppose. The system has name that is a proper noun. There is zero reason to use a descriptive title (which is what not capitalizing makes it, a grammatical point you repeatedly fail to recognize or acknowledge) for something with an actual name. This is like the Sun Bowl (stadium) situation. A Google test is not a valid determinate because it does not make the distinction between names and descriptive phrases. This has been discussed.
And you are once more coming into a subject without making a single other contribution to it and acting like you know more that the hundreds of people that have edited it before, including people recognized as experts on the subject by reliable sources. The fact that you didn't get your way ten years ago doesn't mean you come back and try again just because you didn't like the result. oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, Strongest possible support. Is that loud enough? Everything that Dicklyon writes above seems reasonable to me, and consistent with WP's past and current approach. Tony(talk)08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Where are the project notifications, by the way. This is a high-importance article to my tools projects, none of which have been notified. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. "the Subway" in reference to this system is a proper name, and can be interpreted as the common name. I see this is being interpreted as "New York City's subway", which feels too much like disambiguation and less like a title. Cards8466412:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NCCAPS: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name (emphasis mine). "New York City Subway" is a proper name. Lowercase "subway" could be used in theory as a common noun, but the only entity that currently operates the subway system is the New York City Subway, operated by the New York City Transit Authority. There is a difference between "a New York City subway" and "the New York City Subway"; a comparison of these would be better fit than a raw comparison of title cases. Vcohen also makes the good point that the PATH and Staten Island Railway can also be considered subways to some extent.
didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks.") - You can remove "New York City" from the sentence and it still makes sense, so this is not a use of the NYCS as a proper name.
But WP policy says use sentence case, as informed by use in sentences in sources, which overwhelmingly use lowercase subway. See book n-gram stats: - This comment about book n-gram stats are overwhelmingly incorrect because these books refer to the subway as a generic name, not the proper noun that actually comprises the subway. Prior to unification in 1941, the system was indeed the New York City subway system as there was no properly named company.
in which "New York City Transit" is an actual proper name of an organization, while subway is not. - The nominator doesn't give any evidence to support this assertion. Are we next going to move New York City transit fares to New York City Transit fares under this reasoning? Note that the title (correctly) contains a lowercase "transit" as the article does not only cover the NYCT system.
Overall, it is worth considering whether keeping the title at the current name is either harmful to the encyclopedia or harmful to readers' understanding of the topic. As neither is applicable here (there is no distinct NYC subway that isn't operated by the NYC Subway), there is no need to move the article.
Strong oppose. Just "New York City subway", as a subway located in New York City, may refer to other systems, such as PATH or Staten Island Railway, because they are also located in New York City and may be considered subway systems. Vcohen (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. NCCAPS is clear that unless a proper name is used consistently, it shouldn't be capitalized. Brian Cudahy has written at least two reference works dealing with the subject, Under the Sidewalks of New York and A Century of Subways, and neither uses "New York City Subway" as a proper name, and in fact explicitly does not when given the chance. Regarding the possibility of ambiguity, I think that's easily dealt with by mentioning both systems in the lede as related rapid transit systems that do not fall within the scope of this system. I think it would make good sense to do that regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Mackensen(talk)17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose depending on context, "subway" can either be a generic term (New York City subway system) or part of a title. Unlike other cities where it may be called "the Metro", "the T", "the L", etc. in NYC it is always "subway", regardless of whether it is a formal or a generic reference. I agree that "New York City Subway" is a proper name here and should be capitalized as such. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. WP does not capitalize that which is not near-uniformly capitalized in sources. The opposes above are full of heat with no light. The light is coming from the sources, which clearly demonstrate mixed usage, even in "official" ones. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Ugh, not this madness again. And "New York City Subway" is an entire proper noun. Like someone above said, just because you didn't get your way 10 years ago is not grounds to try again because you were unhappy with the outcome. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 02:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Conditional support I support only after there are enough pledges from "support" backers to do the legwork to fix things. This means both a decent quantity of names and also along with it, estimated time commitments for each person. Until this condition is met, this vote counts as Oppose. I believe this could go either way because it is both a proper noun and a common noun. To the best of my understanding more people think of it as a common noun. If you need hard evidence, see these ngram viewer results.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose New York City has a subway called the New York City Subway, this article is about the system called New York City Subway not about subways in New York in general. None of the evidence presented by those supporting this move shows that the name of the specific subway is a common noun as they claim, just that New York has a common noun subway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Were there any meaningful consensus for this, outside of wikiish newspeak meanings of “consensus”, the direction for change would not be coming from a small coterie of uninvolved persons, but from the bulk of people writing the article. Qwirkle (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: per the guidance (WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and the evidence (particularly the n-gram evidence). WP does capitalise proper nouns/proper names. It determines what is a proper name on the basis of empirical evidene (ie usage in sources). There is no evidence presented that shows it is consistently capitalised in sources. Assertions here that, it is a proper name and should therefore be capitalised, are non-sequitur. They are largely of the type: "it is, because I say it is; therefore it is". Just because a name phrase has a specific referent it does not follow that it is a proper name. Specificity arises through the use of the definite article (ie "the") - as is done with this phrase. Indeed, as a generalisation (to which there are some exceptions), articles do not attach to proper nouns. Furthermore, proper nouns/names are not descriptive. The subject name phrase is clearly descriptive. Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. As to the argument of generic v descriptivespecific, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by MOS:CAPS (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Concluding, the MOS is clear on the criteria for determining capitalisation and this is not being met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)
Strongest possibleOppose (I didn't yell): I do not see enough compelling evidence to support a move strictly based on WP:NCCAPS, with the supposition that in this case subway is a generic term not a proper noun, and don't think there is an "it can go either way"-- in this instance. See "Extra comments" on reasoning. -- Otr500 (talk)
Extra comments: I respect Dicklyon's work and dedication and it is clear that a timeline argument (as long as reasonable) is moot as "Consensus can change". I also do not consider a Wiki-crusader a bad thing. It is also clear that there is an abundance of mixed usage and I think many can be argued with NCCAPS. However, there are far too many reasons to keep the title as is. One of the most convincing was presented by Cinderella157 about a Proper noun (identifies a single entity) although the rationale of venturing into an academic area (concerning orthographic convention and onomastics ) on a subway article escapes me there is a long-standing "convention" to allow the current name and I might surmise a find from a historical aspect might be discovered on the founding name as incorporated. From a Misplaced Pages historical name aspect, I defer to "Oppose".
I can think of three reasons to keep from the start:
1)- This is a very particular instance of a specific subway and not like stating "she was at the subway", or "the subway platform, etc...,
2)- There are many instances where we capitalize certain following words, regardless of "specific" conventions, so there is long-standing community practice to capitalize certain words and "Railway/Railroad" are among them as is "Depot". "Station/station" has mixed uses and sometimes it appears not capitalized more often before parenthetical disambiguation as I saw a template help with and many more.
3) A subway being an underground "Railway/Railroad" is probably not arguable. Considering a change means a decision should be made as to if we should try to change a community norm that would affect many (maybe many, many) tens of thousands of articles or try to effect change on certain articles over time.
The use of search terms as an authority or rationale for a name change many times does not fly. One of the sources (of the 6) states, a translation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, includes: "Originally Published as "New York City Subway".
Any time there is "any" confusion as to a tilt on "proper versus common" nouns in sources there are far too many other things to look at. Some would be:
A)- Length of time under the current name as well as the current assessment, the number of editors (the "bulk of people writing the article") involved, and the activeness of a project. The article shows 1,834 editors, 414 watchers, and 44,897 pageviews (30 days). I would wonder if a courtesy message to the editors should not be sent as very "involved" parties.
B)- I think of the domino effect the change would cause considering the number of articles with related circumstances that would be affected. The slippery slope would be every article, in every instance, with a second or third word that could be "next" on the list,
C)- WP:MOSTITLE states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (My added emphasis) and the same at NCCORP. I am leaning to the common sense side. --- Otr500 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I had to think this one over a bit. The article as currently scoped is primarily about the New York City Subway, which outside of Manhattan is mostly not a subway, and not New York City subways though it must discuss those to some extent especially in covering the history. A lot of what makes this tricky is that it can be used both as a common and a proper noun, and there is a lot of overlap between those uses since it's the only current citywide metro. However given that this isn't something readers are likely to even notice the chance for confusion is pretty minimal, probably doesn't matter too much either way, but on reviewing the guideline and usage here I have to say keep as is. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Support – I was surprised to see that many sources don't capitalize the S in sentence-case. That means we shouldn't either. "Per Mackensen", essentially. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Largely for the reasons given by other editors. I will grant that there is a lot of mixed use out there, which can make assessing this case tricky. The issue is that your average newspaper article will talk about the "subway" or "New York City subway" generically quite frequently, which is fine, but doesn't necessarily speak to the titling of the system itself - equivalent to people writing about "the (TOWN) circus" in a town with just one major circus, but it might still have a proper name like (Town) Circus. The editors who have most closely worked on this article (not me, to be clear) should be given a wide degree of deference as to the most fitting title and they seem to be supporting the capital S as most befitting the sources. (As a secondary argument - not my main one, to be clear - but I'd argue that the threshold for making a change is larger for major articles linked to all over the place. If we're going to break stability on such a prominent article, it should be for a clear benefit where a mistake is getting fixed.) SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
How about we try "New York City metro"? some people don't want to change it because it is a proper noun and not really entirely a subway, and others want to change it because they don't want the last word to be uppercased because it could be used as a common noun. If we do it this way then there is no need to uppercase since it is a common noun and metro describes what it actually is and everyone is happy, good compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue in the sky (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, Strongest possible support. Is that loud enough? Everything that Dicklyon writes above seems reasonable to me, and consistent with WP's past and current approach. Tony(talk)08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
No surprise. You always show up to articles you've never edited before and support his latest campaign. Do you two talk off-wiki? oknazevad (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Oknazevad's comment
Comment. Where are the project notifications, by the way. This is a high-importance article to my tools projects, none of which have been notified. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a trend, but the nominator once tried to revert a revert of an undiscussed move without discussion, in the same topic matter. Someone moved Malbone Street Wreck to Malbone Street wreck without discussion, I reverted it after 2 hours, and the nom requested to uphold the undiscussed move at WP:RM/TR several months afterward. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it seems this is not the first time the nom has tried to request moves without even notifying involved parties. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The "consensus" was composed of you, Tony, and SMcC, who as far as I know are interested more in capitalization moves than about the actual content of the articles (none of you have edited the Malbone Street article before or since). However, this is irrelevant here, as we are talking about the NYC Subway article. Is it or is it not true that you went to WP:RM/TR to revert my revert of someone else's undiscussed move? Because that is my point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That is just as much not relevant here. I don't recall how that went down, but yes it looks like I went to RM:TR to revert what appeared to me to be an undiscussed over-capitalization move. And yes it's true that some editors work more horizontally on style than vertically on topics, and have not editted a lot of the articles that they have expressed RM opinions on. I do some of each (see my user page). Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I suppose my point about Malbone Street was irrelevant. However, this still brings me to the other reason why I brought this up. Since the article is a top-importance article for WP:NYCS, this should've been mentioned there too. Since it's only a high-importance article for WP:NYC and WP:TRAINS, an article alert might be enough; a manual notification would have also been courteous, but Cards has already done these. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It was indeed mentioned there, too; see WP:NYCS#Alerts/Watchlist. I added that to the list. It's hard to know where all the automatic alerts are, but presumably at any Wikiproject that has declared an interest in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Epicgenius's rationale
Oppose per WP:NCCAPS: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name (emphasis mine). "New York City Subway" is a proper name. Lowercase "subway" could be used in theory as a common noun, but the only entity that currently operates the subway system is the New York City Subway, operated by the New York City Transit Authority. There is a difference between "a New York City subway" and "the New York City Subway"; a comparison of these would be better fit than a raw comparison of title cases. Vcohen also makes the good point that the PATH and Staten Island Railway can also be considered subways to some extent.
didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks.") - You can remove "New York City" from the sentence and it still makes sense, so this is not a use of the NYCS as a proper name.
But WP policy says use sentence case, as informed by use in sentences in sources, which overwhelmingly use lowercase subway. See book n-gram stats: - This comment about book n-gram stats are overwhelmingly incorrect because these books refer to the subway as a generic name, not the proper noun that actually comprises the subway. Prior to unification in 1941, the system was indeed the New York City subway system as there was no properly named company.
in which "New York City Transit" is an actual proper name of an organization, while subway is not. - The nominator doesn't give any evidence to support this assertion. Are we next going to move New York City transit fares to New York City Transit fares under this reasoning? Note that the title (correctly) contains a lowercase "transit" as the article does not only cover the NYCT system.
Overall, it is worth considering whether keeping the title at the current name is either harmful to the encyclopedia or harmful to readers' understanding of the topic. As neither is applicable here (there is no distinct NYC subway that isn't operated by the NYC Subway), there is no need to move the article.
@Epicgenius: I think your rationales contradict each other, though perhaps not. If moving this article to "New York City subway" would create ambiguity with PATH and SIR, then it can't also be the case that there is no distinct NYC subway that isn't operated by the NYC Subway. PATH comes under the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and SIR and the New York City S/subway are both operated by the New York City Transit Authority. Mackensen(talk)17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the point up, I realized I was unclear. I mean that the PATH and SIR can to an extent be considered subways; however, it is also true that the NYCS (under the NYCTA) is the only operator of what is commonly known as the "NYC subway". I think the NYCS title should still be kept because it is the proper name used in the system's own logo, but yes, when people refer to the "NYC subway", they are talking about the MTA NYCS, not the SIR or PATH.Another potential issue I see is that, indeed, the subway was historically an amalgamation of the IRT, BMT, and IND. Were these still operating today, the NYCS as a brand wouldn't exist, and I would be the first to agree that "subway" should be de-capped, as in Tokyo subway. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to add a few things to my !vote. One most consider the fact that File:MTA New York City Subway logo.svg is the official logo of the subway and is prominently placed in the infobox. Surely if the subway were lowercase (which it isn't), then what would the proper name of the subway system be? If it were indeed a common noun, either this image should be deleted because the brand "New York City Subway" wouldn't exist, or there's going to be a major discrepancy between why the article has a capitalized logo and a lowercase name.The nominator's argument "The signage caps "Station", but our article title 23rd Street station does not, per WP:NCCAPS." is not a comparable argument here. "23rd Street Station" is not a brand, company, or organization name and "Station" is not an essential part of the station name, like it is for "Penn Station". The governing guideline is WP:USSTATION, and, "unlike "Penn Station", the name of the station is just "23rd Street". – Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of 力's rationale
Oppose depending on context, "subway" can either be a generic term (New York City subway system) or part of a title. Unlike other cities where it may be called "the Metro", "the T", "the L", etc. in NYC it is always "subway", regardless of whether it is a formal or a generic reference. I agree that "New York City Subway" is a proper name here and should be capitalized as such. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If people are saying "New York City Subway" isn't the proper name of this subway system, then what is the proper name for it? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Ugh, not this madness again. And "New York City Subway" is an entire proper noun. Like someone above said, just because you didn't get your way 10 years ago is not grounds to try again because you were unhappy with the outcome. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 02:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Neither you nor oknazevad nor others have shown any source-based evidence for your opinion that it's a proper noun. And obviously the need to fix this is not driven by how long I waited since the last attempt, nor by some presumed unhappiness. Usually short waits are what get criticized; not sure how one can complain about such a long wait. It's not about me; at least you didn't make it as much of an ad hominem as oknazevad did. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Epiphyllumlover's rationale
Conditional support I support only after there are enough pledges from "support" backers to do the legwork to fix things. This means both a decent quantity of names and also along with it, estimated time commitments for each person. Until this condition is met, this vote counts as Oppose. I believe this could go either way because it is both a proper noun and a common noun. To the best of my understanding more people think of it as a common noun. If you need hard evidence, see these ngram viewer results.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am committed to doing the work. I have done thousands of edits on single capitalization issues in the past, and am prepared to do so here as needed; it might take a few weeks. For example, my contributions show about 3000 case fixes to "genocide", May 25–31. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I count about 5,000 inbound links to this article. This does not even include articles with this exact string in the title, of which there are over 100 non-redirect pages and several hundred more redirects. I think it could take months to fully fix this (we haven't even finished fixing links to pages moved under WP:NYCSRFC yet, and that was two years ago). Note that I voted "oppose" above but, if consensus finds in favor of the move, I won't object to asking that these other pages be moved and fixed per WP:TITLECON; however, I won't be able to actually do many of these fixes myself due to the astronomical workload this entails. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
And that's the other thing. Does the sheer amount of disruption that this move would cause actually improve the encyclopedia for readers who have been served just fine for the past decade since this was last suggested, or does it just cause busy work for editors just to mollify a few editors with a personal crusade? It's clearly the latter. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The "sheer amount of disruption" is just some routine work that I've committed to do, with the help of auto wiki browser. It's not a personal crusade; it's a broad consensus on capitalization policy and guidelines. How is this disruptive? If there's a crusade, it's the subway specialists wanting their important stuff to be signified by caps, which is a natural and common application of WP:SSF, but contrary to WP's style. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Thryduulf's rationale
Oppose New York City has a subway called the New York City Subway, this article is about the system called New York City Subway not about subways in New York in general. None of the evidence presented by those supporting this move shows that the name of the specific subway is a common noun as they claim, just that New York has a common noun subway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is questioning what it's called, just whether it's a proper name. The Library of Congress treats it as not, as evidenced by their use of lowercase subway in their conventionally sentence case representation of titles (like WP!); see this search, with hits such as , , , , , ; if there are cases where LOC caps it, I haven't found them. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
In fact, the Reader will note that DL has posted an anticite here. Hit one is a book about subways in New York - it includes PATH, and the LC l.c. may reflect that. Hit three is a children’s book not particularly about the system, which obviously uses “subway” regardless of what system.
More importantly, though, what does the conventions of a cataloging system have to do with those of an attempt at an encyclopedia? It is entirely possible that the LC only capitalizes works and phrases which are overwhelmingly proper names used as such in its cataloging; does it use the same convention in its publications? Qwirkle (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Cinderella157's rationale
Support: per the guidance (WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and the evidence (particularly the n-gram evidence). WP does capitalise proper nouns/proper names. It determines what is a proper name on the basis of empirical evidene (ie usage in sources). There is no evidence presented that shows it is consistently capitalised in sources. Assertions here that, it is a proper name and should therefore be capitalised, are non-sequitur. They are largely of the type: "it is, because I say it is; therefore it is". Just because a name phrase has a specific referent it does not follow that it is a proper name. Specificity arises through the use of the definite article (ie "the") - as is done with this phrase. Indeed, as a generalisation (to which there are some exceptions), articles do not attach to proper nouns. Furthermore, proper nouns/names are not descriptive. The subject name phrase is clearly descriptive. Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. As to the argument of generic v descriptivespecific, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by MOS:CAPS (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Concluding, the MOS is clear on the criteria for determining capitalisation and this is not being met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)
Given that major civil works are a glaring exception to this alleged rule of definite article-lessness, this reads very much like a canned response. Qwirkle (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Pls see "proper noun" and, since I am sure you will say, that WP is not a reliable source - this. Capitalisation is an orthographic convention, while what is a proper noun is a matter of onomastics. While it is convention to capitalise proper nouns, capitalisation is not equivalent to being a proper noun. Not everything that is capitalised is a proper noun. That would be a simplistic view, even if it is expedient. Many civil works are given a proprietary name and the convention to capitalise such, perhaps falls more to them being considered in the same vein as a trade mark than being a proper noun. I never claimed that the definite article was a reason to exclude a noun phrase from being a proper name. It is, however, reason to approach the question with caution. It is also why WP chooses to resolve such questions on the basis of empirical evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The Reader will note that this paper is not germane. It is an attempt to clarify the “syntactically definable” proper nouns, i.e. those of regular construction. (It even gives an example of an irregular proper name, “the Dalles” in its list of examples to underscore the point.) As you yourself, and more importantly, countless actual experts, have written, English is famous for its irregularities. Qwirkle (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The paper is germaine to the question responded to (though less to the main question here). It does address the matter of articles, as does the link to the WP article. English is famous for its irregularities. That is why MOS:CAPS adopts a standard of empirical evidence in the matter of capitalisation. This is my central argument for supporting the move. It is objective and evidence based - unlike some of the arguments being mounted. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Gentle Reader, please read the two sections above and judge its accuracy…or honesty
The bizarre Google-dredges, devoid of any attempt to discover whether the phrase is being used as a name of a “particular person, place, or thing”, stand in relation to “emperical evidence” as a haruspex consulting the giblets of a hen does to “scientific method.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Vcohen, English is a language of contradictions. "Brooklyn" is a proper noun acting as an attributive to the appelative (or common noun) "bridge" but convention is to capitalise things like: road, river, bridge, mount etc in such cases. You will see from the examples that the common noun in such a noun phrase is almost never written in lowercase. This, however, is not what we see for "New York City subway". Cinderella157 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. However, what is "etc in such cases" and why is this "not what we see" in our case? Where and what exactly do we see? Vcohen (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Vcohen, etc in such cases, just means the many other similar cases of geographical features: names of seas, oceans, islands. To, "not what we see" in our case: the OP has presented n-gram evidence of capitalisation in contexts that would represent usage in running text (see also this n-gram). The evidence for this case is not showing the same consistent capitalisation we see for "Brooklyn Bridge" and the other examples I provided earlier. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
…which, to someone not on some brummagem crusade (Brumagem Crusade?) to twist Misplaced Pages’s English into some bizarre Newspeak, occurs for perfectly explicable reasons. Proper names which resemble simple descriptors will often show parallel constructions meant as simple descriptors. “The Brooklyn Bridge” is a particular (place and) thing; in the sentence “The Brooklyn b/Bridge need only span the comparatively narrow East River; the Hudson b/Bridge must cross far more water” the same term can be used as a simple descriptor (or as a Platonic Ideal, just to add another level of ambiguity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Vcohen, as a language, English defies codification - there are perhaps as many exceptions to any rule as there is conformity and it is constantly evolving. This is despite the best efforts of our teachers to convey the "rules" of English and how each generation would attempt to impose their learning on the subsequent. If you look at the example n-gram of Brooklyn Bridge you will see the change in "norms" with time. scuba is an even better example, though it is not directly relevant to the matter of geographical features. The current Usus for a range of geographical names is to apply capitalisation and tends to defy the trend to reduce capitalisation. In such cases, the usage is very consistent (per my examples). I have read that (in part) this is driven by postal requirements but (probably) also by translating cartographic conventions to written language (my view). Regardless, WP adopts Usus (empirical evidence) as the basis for determining capitalisation. Furthermore, the evidence of usage does not support that this is a case that should be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vcohen, the phrase (as I understand it, since the original comment was overly complex in its wording) basically means that even if you add "a", "an", "the", before some name, it doesn't need to be a proper noun. For example, you can say something like "a Brooklyn bridge" to refer to some bridge in Brooklyn, like Carroll Street Bridge, which is one example of a Brooklyn bridge. But, in that case, you would just as easily say "a bridge in Brooklyn". If you've referred to that specific bridge before but didn't mention where it was, you can say "the Brooklyn bridge", e.g. "The Carroll Street Bridge spans the Gowanus Canal in NYC. The Brooklyn bridge carries Carroll Street." But again, you would say something like "the bridge, located in Brooklyn". I would consider something a proper noun if it's frequently used in one specific phrasing. For instance, "the subway in New York City" is not a thing most people say, you would say "the New York City Subway" (but you can also say "New York City's subway" if you're talking about the historical network, for instance). Conversely, you would be able to say "the C and E train station at 23rd Street" instead of "the 23rd Street Station", which is why "station" in Dicklyon's "23rd Street station" example is a common noun. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
As to the argument of generic v descriptive, this is firstly addressed by the use of the definite article, which thereby makes such a reference to a specific entity. Such an argument is also one of capitalising for emphasis or distinction. Such usage is specifically deprecated by MOS:CAPS (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS) - MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says that "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis", but there is no emphasis in "subway". I'm genuinely confused why this is brought up, since if we were emphasizing "subway", then the title would be "New York City Subway", which isn't what the displayed title is.Onomastically, proper names are arbitary lables - they tell us nothing of the nature of the entity so named. - Does this imply that all proper names have nothing to indicate what the subject is? I would argue this is wrong as well. It may well be that a proper noun like "Philadelphia" would indeed say nothing about the subject, but this is evidently not true for "Staten Island", which is neither a trademark nor a proper name without some indication of what the subject is about. In either case, something can be wholly descriptive and also a proper name, like "Staten Island Railway", which is a railroad on Staten Island with that legal name. Epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
An argument of generic v descriptivespecific is to use capitalisation for a distinction or significance, since specificity is achieved through the definite article. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS states:This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. It then continues: Introduction of a term of art may be wikilinked and, optionally, given in non-emphasis italics on first occurrence. The argument is non-sequitur, since nobody appears to be asserting that "subway" is a term of art.
To the second part, the argument comes from the premise that, capitalisation is equivalent to being a proper noun and that all capitalised nouns or noun phrases are proper nous/names. To "Staten Island Railway", it falls to the same convention of capitalising proprietary names. Geographical names such as "Stanton Island" are consistently capitalised as written. I addressed the matter to Vcohen but you have expressed a different view. The point I made then was, if "New York City subway" fell to the same category as "Stanton Island" or "Brooklyn Bridge" then we should see the same degree of consistency for it as we do for the latter two. We don't. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The argument is non-sequitur, since nobody appears to be asserting that "subway" is a term of art. - Yes, it is a non-sequitur, because I never mentioned anything about art, so I don't see why it's being brought up? I was mentioning how your comment implied the title was trying to inflate the "importance or specialness of something in a particular context", which I argue isn't the case here. I think we should agree to disagree, but I still don't understand what you're even talking about with regards to that.As for Staten Island, yes, I see your point, but that is a geographical name so it's more like "New York City" and "Brooklyn", and it isn't directly comparable to the subway. A proper name need not be consistent or even correctly referenced to remain a proper name. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
then the title would be "New York City Subway". The context of the discussion was the guidance at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, where the guidance (specifically) is to italicise a "term of art". Since "Subway" was being italicised within the context of MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, the indication is that it is being considered a "term of art". Otherwise, it would appear that the guidance is being misunderstood. A proper name need not be consistent or even correctly referenced to remain a proper name. This sounds like an "I know the rules of English even if nobody else does" type argument. As stated above, English defies codification. At best, the "rules" we are taught are guidance, to which there are many exceptions and arguments (such as these) at the fringe of the validity of such rules. That is why MOS:CAPS relies on empirical evidence of usage to determine capitalisation. Usage and evidence has been my primary argument to support the move. That I have delved into the "rules" has simply been a counter-argument. "the subway in New York City" is not a thing most people say, you would say "the New York City Subway" ... But you can't hear capital letters. True proper nouns (as opposed to other things we might capitalise are recognised in speech because they are arbitary lables that are not descriptive of the entity being referenced. The matter becomes complicated when we try to equate orthography with onomastics and justify our other choices of capitalisation as belonging to the same gramatical class. A proper name (a noun phrase) refers to a specific entity in a particular context (eg William) but the name itself is not necessarily unique. A common noun phrase (common name) can be both unique and specific. Specificity is most often through the definite article. Uniqueness and specificity are not definative of a proper name. An argument based on such an assertion fails if this is its substantive basis. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
the guidance at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - This does not say anything about titles. It seems like this will be confusing and non-constructive to continue to debate this particular point, so like I said, let's agree to disagree.This sounds like an "I know the rules of English even if nobody else does" type argument. As stated above, English defies codification. - In the context of my comment "A proper name need not be consistent or even correctly referenced to remain a proper name", these two sentences are contradictory. Either a proper name has to be consistent to be proper, or English defies codification and thus a proper name doesn't need to be consistent. My statement was that, since "English defies codification" (a sentiment with which I agree), therefore a proper name isn't always capitalized especially in less formal contexts.But you can't hear capital letters - I concede that is correct. But then "true proper nouns" would only ever apply to something that, if lowercased, would show up as a red squiggle under the word, which I think may be taking it too far. It could be that a proper name is composed of both common and proper nouns, which is the case in things like "New York". I'm just stating my reasons why I disagree - it doesn't have to be an argument, as I'm stating my opinion and not looking to start up any conflict unnecessarily. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I use the term "argument" as an exchange of differing ideas and I respect that we are able to do this without conflict. I would point out that WP:NCCAPS does defer to MOS:CAPS on the subject of article title capitalisation. To your third point, a true proper name can consist of common nouns (eg the Rolling Stones - which is now also a proprietary name). The distinction is that the label is arbitrary and not descriptive of the entity being named. To your second. statement was that, since "English defies codification" (a sentiment with which I agree), therefore a proper name isn't always capitalized especially in less formal contexts. This leaves us with a dilemma since specificity and uniqueness do not resolve the matter either. We then come back to the guidance at MOS:CAPS: we capitalise that which is consistently capped. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Otr500's rationale
Strongest possibleOppose (I didn't yell): I do not see enough compelling evidence to support a move strictly based on WP:NCCAPS, with the supposition that in this case subway is a generic term not a proper noun, and don't think there is an "it can go either way"-- in this instance. See "Extra comments" on reasoning. -- Otr500 (talk)
Extra comments: I respect Dicklyon's work and dedication and it is clear that a timeline argument (as long as reasonable) is moot as "Consensus can change". I also do not consider a Wiki-crusader a bad thing. It is also clear that there is an abundance of mixed usage and I think many can be argued with NCCAPS. However, there are far too many reasons to keep the title as is. One of the most convincing was presented by Cinderella157 about a Proper noun (identifies a single entity) although the rationale of venturing into an academic area (concerning orthographic convention and onomastics ) on a subway article escapes me there is a long-standing "convention" to allow the current name and I might surmise a find from a historical aspect might be discovered on the founding name as incorporated. From a Misplaced Pages historical name aspect, I defer to "Oppose".
I can think of three reasons to keep from the start:
1)- This is a very particular instance of a specific subway and not like stating "she was at the subway", or "the subway platform, etc...,
2)- There are many instances where we capitalize certain following words, regardless of "specific" conventions, so there is long-standing community practice to capitalize certain words and "Railway/Railroad" are among them as is "Depot". "Station/station" has mixed uses and sometimes it appears not capitalized more often before parenthetical disambiguation as I saw a template help with and many more.
3) A subway being an underground "Railway/Railroad" is probably not arguable. Considering a change means a decision should be made as to if we should try to change a community norm that would affect many (maybe many, many) tens of thousands of articles or try to effect change on certain articles over time.
The use of search terms as an authority or rationale for a name change many times does not fly. One of the sources (of the 6) states, a translation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, includes: "Originally Published as "New York City Subway".
Any time there is "any" confusion as to a tilt on "proper versus common" nouns in sources there are far too many other things to look at. Some would be:
A)- Length of time under the current name as well as the current assessment, the number of editors (the "bulk of people writing the article") involved, and the activeness of a project. The article shows 1,834 editors, 414 watchers, and 44,897 pageviews (30 days). I would wonder if a courtesy message to the editors should not be sent as very "involved" parties.
B)- I think of the domino effect the change would cause considering the number of articles with related circumstances that would be affected. The slippery slope would be every article, in every instance, with a second or third word that could be "next" on the list,
C)- WP:MOSTITLE states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (My added emphasis) and the same at NCCORP. I am leaning to the common sense side. --- Otr500 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
What I actually said was: ... proper names are arbitary lables. A proper name is not necessarily unique to a particular entity. There are many instances where the same proper name is used by multiple entities. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
That is true but I submit not in this case. This seems to be a unique name for a specific subject. Even if the naming conventions were more stringent, it would qualify as an exception. However, in this case, I don't see a need of looking for exceptions. I also don't want to see some concrete "rule" where there is no room for exceptions in naming conventions nor projects. I have been down that road once seeking a name change from an obscure "official" name to a far more historical and current name. It took over a year for a resolution that was already backed by policy. Even after achieving a name change, the insane battle caused me to back away from the project and subject. My point is that sometimes pursuing a "one-shoe-fits-all" can have unintended consequences. I think New York City Subway is the correct more common name (historical and current), unique to the individual entity, and per my comments above I see there are too many reasons not to change this name. Again, if we are going to capitalize certain words that include "Railroad/Railway" then a specific underground "Railroad", referred to as a subway, would be a natural name for inclusion and the second common-sense reason for keeping in this instance. I am at a loss as to the hardline stance sometimes. It is similar to Talk:Track_(rail_transport) where "keep" arguments are doggedly for unnecessary disambiguation, supposedly to appease the different uses of English, so wanting to exclude "Railroad/Railway" (the original author is from the UK), and a song is under the title Railroad Track. There has to be common sense and logic not arguments just for the sake of it. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6's rationale
Weak Oppose I had to think this one over a bit. The article as currently scoped is primarily about the New York City Subway, which outside of Manhattan is mostly not a subway, and not New York City subways though it must discuss those to some extent especially in covering the history. A lot of what makes this tricky is that it can be used both as a common and a proper noun, and there is a lot of overlap between those uses since it's the only current citywide metro. However given that this isn't something readers are likely to even notice the chance for confusion is pretty minimal, probably doesn't matter too much either way, but on reviewing the guideline and usage here I have to say keep as is. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a good point. The NYCS is not a subway system as a common noun (because about 40% of its lines are not underground). As a common noun, it is a metro system. If despite this it's called the NYCS, that means that it is its proper name. Vcohen (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of SnowFire's rationale
Oppose. Largely for the reasons given by other editors. I will grant that there is a lot of mixed use out there, which can make assessing this case tricky. The issue is that your average newspaper article will talk about the "subway" or "New York City subway" generically quite frequently, which is fine, but doesn't necessarily speak to the titling of the system itself - equivalent to people writing about "the (TOWN) circus" in a town with just one major circus, but it might still have a proper name like (Town) Circus. The editors who have most closely worked on this article (not me, to be clear) should be given a wide degree of deference as to the most fitting title and they seem to be supporting the capital S as most befitting the sources. (As a secondary argument - not my main one, to be clear - but I'd argue that the threshold for making a change is larger for major articles linked to all over the place. If we're going to break stability on such a prominent article, it should be for a clear benefit where a mistake is getting fixed.) SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that the threshold for making a change is larger for major articles linked to all over the place. If we're going to break stability on such a prominent article, it should be for a clear benefit where a mistake is getting fixed. - I agree with this argument. If the nominator's assertion were correct, then almost all instances of the capitalized version would be mistakes that need to be fixed sitewide. Here, it's not so clear that capitalizing "Subway" is a "mistake", so the situation just isn't as cut-and-dry. Like you said, people can refer to a proper name with common noun capitalization, which may greatly skew search results, especially when the only New York City subway system is the New York City Subway. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@SunriseInBrooklyn, the nom specifically wants to move the page to a lowercase "Subway". The other issue is that the lack of specificity in "MTA" compared to "New York City" makes it less helpful for readers. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Blue in the sky's rationale
How about we try "New York City metro"? some people don't want to change it because it is a proper noun and not really entirely a subway, and others want to change it because they don't want the last word to be uppercased because it could be used as a common noun. If we do it this way then there is no need to uppercase since it is a common noun and metro describes what it actually is and everyone is happy, good compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue in the sky (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No. Because in real life, people seldom say or write that, and when they do, they are frequently talking or writing about something else, like the “New York City metro(politan) area”. The thing is called the S/subway. Its proper name, and its most common descriptor are identical, just like the Massachusetts Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and so forth. Qwirkle (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No, this is actually worse off from both the uppercase and lowercase points of view as this violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. It is not called the metro and this is not a usage seen anywhere. A subway need not be fully underground to still be a subway. The majority of the NYC Subway system still is underground, unlike the London Underground which, ironically enough, has a majority of its trackage above ground.As to clarity of subject, metro describes what it actually is is wrong, as "metro" is commonly used for metro areas such as the New York metropolitan area. Actually, you'd have an easier time convincing people that this is an appropriate name for the newspaper Metro New York. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The book n-gram stats linked above are pretty compelling. I know you don't care for such evidence; have you got anything else? Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Like I mentioned above, "people can refer to a proper name with common noun capitalization, which may greatly skew search results". The fact that the subway system existed for quite a while before the creation of NYCS, the entity, doesn't help. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS says Misplaced Pages relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Misplaced Pages. Your pronouncement of proper name status flies in the face of that guidance. And the timing question is pretty explicit already in the n-gram stats. Dicklyon (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not "pronouncing" anything, I'm saying what's literally on the logo and marketing materials. I know you're saying the station sign is a parallel to the logo, but like I've said above, the vast majority of stations are not brands and fall under WP:USSTATION. If the proper name is not "New York City Subway", then what is the proper name? I was genuinely asking that above but no one ever responded. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to say I find that thoroughly unpersuasive. The fact that we know when a text was published tells us nothing about what time period the text is referring to. Further given the lack of context it's hard to say when this is being used as a proper noun, as Epicgenius pointed out earlier that would mean excluding from our examination cases where New York City could be removed and the sentence would still make sense. Your other claim wrt capitalization only being used when the ngrmas difference is overwhelming has already been amply refuted by Otr500 above. However even if that claim were true your argument would still fail as much of what is covered in ngrams is not RS by our standards, and use of ngrams in this way has been previously rejected for that reason see e.g. the kyiv move discussion. Now this move is picayune in comparison to that one, or indeed most any move so no need to make a big deal out of things, my mind is still open, and maybe a good argument could be offered for this move, it just hasn't been made yet. On the other hand if you try to move Southern Hemisphere to Southern hemisphere I probably will roll my eyes 😉. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This idea that "it's hard to say when this is being used as a proper noun" could be supported by examples of uses either way in sources, if such differences exist. Have you looked to see if you can find such a distinction, where you can tell by looking whether the intention is to use it as a proper name or not? If you can't back up the idea with examples from sources, it's not much of an idea. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
In fact Epicgenius already provided an example earlier from a source you supplied which showed mixed usage which I'll quote in it's entirety.didn't recognize that the MTA itself often uses lowercase in sentence context (e.g. as in "The station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue is the third station in the New York City subway system that employs low vibration tracks.") - You can remove "New York City" from the sentence and it still makes sense, so this is not a use of the NYCS as a proper name.Certainly more could be found, but to generate real evidence someone would need to develop a script that could sort the various use cases, probably not worth the time investment for one mostly inconsequential rm. OTOH if this kind of rm is coming up a lot these days then maybe it would be a good tool to work on. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Common contexts can be identified using the books n-gram tool. See here; or build your own. Can you find a context in which caps are more common? Or look for examples in Scholar. Lowercase still dominates in all contexts I can find. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a proposition that we can distinguish the use as a proper name phrase with capital "S" from usage that is a common noun phrase lowercase "s" because the former is an indivisible phrase. In the latter case, "New York City" is an attributive noun phrase (acting like an adjective that modifies the common noun "subway". The attributive noun phrase can be omitted without the sentence becoming nonsense (though it may loose some specificity through omitting the adjectival modifier). In all cases within running prose within the article, "New York City" is preceded by an article (usually 'the') or some other determiner. I am hard pressed to see any case within the running prose of the article whereby dropping "New York City" when it precedes "subway" causes a sentence to become nonsense. Therefore the proposition appears to be non sequituras a justification for the capitalised form. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Epicgenius, to your question: If the proper name is not "New York City Subway", then what is the proper name? First, the phrase proper name has at least two meanings. In this discussion, it is referring to the grammatical meaning (and more specifically, the onomastic meaning, since it is the specific field of study pertaining to the study of proper names). A second meaning would be the correct name of something. The two are not synonymous. In this case, "the New York City S|subway" is the correct name for the article (and the infrastructure - I would guess) but that does not mean it is gramatically/onomastically a proper name. The proper name of my friend, Bill, is William but both are proper names gramatically. Furthermore, in usage (context), they would both be proper names regardless of capitalisation. There are lots of names that we might (wish to either as individuals or as some collective) capitalise which are not "true" proper names. Nonetheless, it is convenient to label these as "proper names". It comes down to the perceived equivalence between capitalisation (orthography) and proper name (grammar); and, the broad "rules" we are taught to try to codify English, even though it is openly acknowledged in this discussion that English defies codification. This is why MOS:CAPS relies on empirical evidence of usage rather than definition. Orthography might be defined as a linguistic perception of what is a proper name. As such, there are names that float in and out of the collective peception of being a proper name. Oxford is one example but scuba is a converse example. MOS:CAPS is our guidance for resolving such imponderables and it indicates consistency of capitalisation. This is not the case here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) PS not everything has a gramatical proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The above word-salad farrago would need a good many words added to become accurate, but can be made useful here by simple deletion. Onamastics, unsurprisingly, is not a precise science, and many papers -I’d suggest possibly most- use core concepts contextually, and begin with an explanation of exactly how those words will be used in the paper. Orthonym in general use means just what it would as a calque; it is the right name. Onamastics uses it as a term of art for a formal personal name, with -some- reserving the use to first names; proper nouns in one strict sense; in the context of bye-names it could mean apparently the opposite. That fellow from Asia Minor’s orthonym is “Mustafa” alone to some, “Mustafa Kemal” to most, but “Ataturk” to a few.
So, to some persons studying onomastics, “William Wilson” is a proper name; to others it is a combination of two proper names, one of the person and one of the family. If he is a private person, his orthonym is “William” or “William Wilson” depending on the school (never a good sign, that), he is called “Bill” which is a “proper name” to some, but not his orthonym, unless he become so famous or notorious that his mononym becomes his usual designator, at which point some on the fringe would argue it is his orthonym.
(Out in the wilds of NFE (Normal Effin’ English), usually an “orthonym” is contrasted to a “pseudonym”. To the Eneffeee speaker, “Samuel Clemens” is the orthonym, “Mark Twain” the pseudonym. To the grammarian, both are proper names, to many grammarians, both are proper nouns.)
I would suggest that all references to onamastics here are a confusing smokescreen. It is not a settled discipline , in the way that Newtonian Physics is. Stripped of the padding, the Ellcee argument here appears to be that we should simply show count mass usage in a particular corpus of work. This flies completely in the face of everything else Misplaced Pages does. The rest of it is, at least in theory, based on preferring more expert sources over ignorant ones. Qwirkle (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 thanks for your response. What I meant is that there is a distinction to be made between "proper names" and "proper nouns". For instance, in "Brooklyn Bridge", "Bridge" is not a proper noun, but it is part of the proper name, whereas your example of "William" is both a proper name and a proper noun. However, you can refer to the Brooklyn Bridge in context as "the bridge". My argument is that something similar applies here, or at least should apply here, e.g. "the subway" vs "the New York City Subway". In other words, if "Subway" is not part of the proper name of the system that is branded as such, it would then be a generic subway in NYC. But, as I said, the fact that the subway system of New York City existed long before the New York City Subway branding came around mixes things up, and the n-grams using these interchangeably mixes these up even more. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Epicgenius, you would assert that "Brooklyn Bridge" is a proper name (on the basis that both nouns in the name phrase are capitalised) and by extrapolation, "NYC Subway" is also a proper name. This comes down to a distinction between grammar and orthography (per my previous). For the most, geographical features can be referred to without reference to the "descriptor" - eg: the Pacific, the Andes etc. Bridges appear to fall at the fringe of convention so that we can refer to "the Golden Gate" but probably not "the Brooklyn" (but mainly because it would be ambiguous with the place that it connects). An argument by extrapolation is only valid within the reliability of the extrapolation. Evidence (usage) is that the extrapolation is unreliable. To "branding", if this was the "trade name", then it would be consistently capitalised by the brander. It isn't. To distinguishing generic v specific, I have also addressed this per the guidance at MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. If we must distinguish this article from other possible articles and uses, then capitalising one letter in 15 characters is not a good choice wrt accessibility, where text readers do not make such a distinction. If distinction is the primary argument for capping, then we should investigate a better title that is less ambiguous wrt accessibility. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This argument is based in several blatant falsehoods. To begin with, as a general rule, most geographic feature’s name are not rendered without the descriptive portion. For every “Pacific”, there are thousands of named ponds and lakes. For every “Thames, Hudson, or Nile”, there are hundreds or thousands of rivers for which “river” is usually part of their name, to say nothing of the thousands of creeks, becks, waters, and so forth. Many of these can not be referred on by the core of the name except in close context…in which case they might as equally by called by the descriptor, sometimes capitalized.
”The Golden Gate” is every bit as ambiguous as “the Brooklyn”; the Golden Gate being, strictly, a strait connecting the Pacific with San Francisco Bay.
Cinderella157, I do think your point about attributive phrase removal is valid. The obvious exception would be when the NYCS is being discussed in context with other systems. If I reference both it and the Paris M/metro, the Glasgow S/subway or the PATH in a sentence, then removing the phrase could cause a huge mess, and given the number of articles we have that probably happens somewhere.Dicklyon, getting back to your point over clear evidence, the fact the something is a more common referent isn't very useful on it's own. First it's only RS that matter, or the move Sears Tower -> Willis Tower would never have happened. Second even when RS show a preference that's not enough to overcome an invocation of WP:PRECISE, the article title policy clearly states Ambiguous or inaccurate names names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Further, I did some research and the position that ngrams stats should automatically control title decisions has been consistently rejected, and not just in big controversial cases like kiev -> kyiv, but even in some other cases very much like this one involving subways see e.g. Talk:Metro Manila Subway#Requested move 7 June 2020. There’s also well documented concern over both systemic issues with the google corpus and the fact that much of what it documents is not RS.As a more general point there does seem to be a larger issue with disputes involving proper names. As SMcCandlish once observedOur obvious default per MOS:CAPS's first rule would be to use lower-case consistently, because the terms are not consistently capitalized in sources. However, an argument can be made that in this particular sense they are serving the function of proper names, so lower-casing them produces an inconsistency with the treatment of other names. This is another of our common cases of different kinds of consistency in conflict, which can be tedious to resolve, and the resolution of which never makes everyone perfectly happy.I may think on this more when I have the time as it feels like some things are best resolved by adding clarity at a higher level. In this case we have the good fortune to be discussing a relatively minor, some might even say WP:BIKESHED level, issue. But I can foresee cases where the current lack of clarity on some of these issues could get nasty. Might be best to come up with a better approach before that happens. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
We modify common nouns and create noun phrases in order to be more specific. This allows us to distinguish two different entities within the same class (common noun). However, the noun phrases (names) created to make such a distinction are not ipso facto proper names and therefore capitalised. Capitalisation is not necessary (per MOS:CAPS). The burden (per guidance) is to show it is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157, I mostly agree with that, and in fact I don't think anyone has argued that they are ipso facto proper nouns for that reason. In fact the points raised by Epicgenius, Qwirkle, Otr500 etc wouldn’t make any sense at all if any of them were so insisting. Whether capitalization is necessary in the Misplaced Pages sense is of course the entire point of this discussion so your claim to the contrary merely begs the question. Speaking more generally and not just in the WP sense, capitalization is essentially never necessary for clarity/disambiguation but it is often desirable. I'm actually not sure where the burden is per the guidelines from reviewing past deliberations (and much of the above discussion centres on policy which supersedes guidelines anyway), but I don’t think the point is relevant since burden only becomes pertinent in the rare situation when there is no preponderance either way which does not appear to be the case here. I do think there are other points to be made about semiotics more generally, but discussing them now risks derailing this entire discussion. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the guidelines make it clear that "necessary" comes in when most sources cap. That's not the case here, by far. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
One point being missed is that while you assert "most sources" do not cap, we are not concerned with the proportion of all sources we are concerned with the proportion of uses of this term referring to this subject in a relevant manner in reliable sources. The evidence presented in this discussion indicates that the majority of such uses are capitalised. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, per The evidence presented in this discussion indicates that the majority of such uses are capitalised. I am not seeing any evidence from any corpus of sources having been presented where the term is capitalised in the majority of such uses let alone that it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Taking this onboard though, I have taken a closer look at the sources cited in the article. The majority of sources have a web-link. I looked at the first twenty citations, ten starting at citation 150, ten starting at citation 300 and the last eleven (ie back from citation 411). Upon downloading each page, I did a search (not case sensitive) for the string "new york city subway". About 5 of the links did not open and two were videos. I found three that capitalised the "s" but these were in titles (one also capitalised New York City Subways ). I found five for New York City subways (ie lowercas "s") but context might be disputed on one or two of these. All of these citations purport to pertain this, the subject article, and it frankly amazes me that so few contained the search string - particularly given it is claimed to be the "proper name" (either gramatically or as a matter correctness). This was an arbitrarily chosen sample (about 10% of the total) and yes, we could go through every reference. - but are we going to see evidence of consistent capitalisation? Even if my results are less than perfect (I didn't get this so wrong) - so I doubt it. The subsiuary article History of the New York City Subway makes no distinction with time as to how it refers to the subject and the matter of capitalisation - although this could be ascribed to deft writing. The other thing I observe is that there are 52 individual citations to nycsubway.org. As pointed out below, this is a questionable source per WP:RELIABILITY. It certainly casts into doubt the proposition (an opposing argument to the move proposal) that: the bulk of people writing the article are in a better position to determine capitalisation than a process that seeks input from the broader community. It also casts into doubt the GA status of the article, given the extent to which it would rely on a source asserted as being not a reliable source. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact that terms are sometimes used anachronistically in this set of articles is a red herring, there's site-wide consensus allowing it e.g. the title History of New York City (prehistory–1664) is entriely anachronistic, and since sources also do this, plenty of books on the pre-1867 history of Canada or pre-1776 history of the United States, it's not even at all surprising. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to derail this thread (no pun intended), but yes nycsubway.org looks thouroughly WP:MREL. The webmaster may have expertise in the topic, but unless we can verify that either everyone listed here is an expert or that all of their contributions have been reviewed by experts we can't classify it as reliable (and even then it would still be an SPS). Hence while there's no need to remove it, we shouldn't use it to source any controversial statements. Cheers 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
"Most" is not even the relevant criterion (but rather "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources"). But you have to be pretty darn selective to find a group where "most" do capitalize, since the vast majority do not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Dicklyon your thought above I think the guidelines make it clear that "necessary" comes in when most sources cap. That's not the case here, by far is yet more question begging. Much opposition actually rests on policy here and not just the guidelines. Further opposition has disputed not just the assertion that most RS don't cap when referencing the article subject (both because ngrams is quite limited and because the words may be used proximately in referencing other subjects), but the premise that such is even a requirement under the guidelines in the first place; Otr500 in facts devotes much attention to the latter point.
So I went through your reference addition and I have to say I'm extremely disappointed.
At the risk of being overly repetitious I need to emphasize that that prior to unification in 1941 there was no New York City Subway, as there was no properly named company, this is a one component of the PRECISION point that has been raised by most of the opposes. The MTA stuff has already been discussed to death above, and it's not IS anyway, so let's go through your other sources
Here New York City subway references the pre-unification system; the NYCS did not yet exist, but the New York City subway did (starting in 1904).
Again New York City subway references the pre-unification system.
This is cleary a non-RS SPS with some UGEN (actually as controlled membership wiki more like a group blog) I almost skipped it for that reason alone as worthless, but on a whim I looked and saw yet another reference to the pre-unification system
Not at all clear this refering solely to the subject of this article. The map in question includes not just the NYCS, but also the SIR and PATH (a non-NYCS subway in New York City).
It's the map that the MTA titles "New York City Subway". The source refers to it as "the current New York City subway map", because they (apparently) don't see "subway" as part of the proper name of what it's a map of. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As you yourself pointed out this omits City. Since the proper name is New York City Subway that is obviously not a use of it.
I'm not even going to bother examining the Post or Daily News links. They're both tabloids and obviously not RS and so irrelevant for this discussion. They may be acceptable sources for reporting sports scores, or when publishing columns by reputed experts, but are otherwise generally best avoided, and should be removed from BLPs on sight. Cheers, 2607:F938:1000:5:0:0:A96B:9DB6 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
These are not my sources, but the ones on the history article, some of which do refer to the pre-unification system. But none of them, as far as I could find, make a case distinction for the the before/after system, and even those referring to the modern system are still mostly useing lowercase. Can you find some that do cap it? I think I only saw one (but not all are easily visible, so you may find more). And throwing out the newspapers why? Don't they represent usage in reliable sources? If not, take them off the article. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Note that all of these Wikiprojects had already been notified via their automatic article alerts. There's no need for this extra late canvassing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Is any of the opposition based in guideline, policy, or sources?
The various opposing claims of "it's a proper name" are not backed up by usage evidence, as MOS:CAPS suggests, nor respecting "lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" as WP:NCCAPS suggests, but just on signs, logos, maps, titles, and such. Or did I miss something? And is the fact that the MTA itself uses "New York City subway" and "New York City subway system" interchangeably itself not convince? Most opposers have not responded to the evidence presented. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The article title has been stable for over a decade and a half. Changing it requires an overwhelmingly convincing case which results in unambiguous consensus, which clearly doesn't exist. And if the guidelines don't account for actual practice in article titling, then it's the guideline that needs to change, not the article titles, as guidelines follow practice, not the other way around. oknazevad (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority (like 99.99%) of articles conform to the policy and guidelines of WP:NCCAPS and WP:MOSCAPS. When I find a corner of Misplaced Pages where they don't, I try to fix them. In most cases this goes through without comment or opposition, but among rail fans it has been more problematic. The consensus to follow these guidelines is solid and widespread, but getting enough people to come here and tell the many rail fans that is more dicy, probabilistic. When they do show up, I get accused of off-wiki canvassing, since there's no actual policy-based reason to oppose. And as for the long time and much work to be done, yes, so stipulated. I'm up for fixing it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria1995, Kxie16 (article contribs).
