User talk:NE2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Contents 1 BRT rapid transit operations 2 Hey 2.1 PA 145 3 Thanks 4 1 (New York City Subway service) unreferenced? 5 Washington Heights 6 Free Transfer 7 Review 8 List of unused highways 9 Edits 10 Seek consensus please. 11 RFC has been iniated 12 USRD Newsletter - Issue 4 13 Move warning 14 Access icon 15 RE:Autoformatter 16 Oiled road 17 List of NYCS stations 18 Trolley/Tram 19 International wheelchair symbol discussion 20 NY Times article request 21 Snidely 22 Reply 23 Template:NYCS 24 About Baltimore MTA bus lines pages 25 Follow-up response about No. 51 Line 26 Template:NYCS time

[edit] BRT rapid transit operations

Short answer for the post-1907 rapid transit era is the BRT lines operated as leaseholds. There was no issue of trackage rights (unless we're talking about oddities like the Brighton to Manhattan Beach). Who was the technical operator of lines until the BMT organized in 1923 usually came into play only in legal matters; it's not as through a Brooklyn Union Elevated crew got off at Ninth Avenue and a Nassau Electric crew got on a West End elevated train there.

Leaseholds also count when the sh*t hits the fan, as when the BCRR reclaimed its surface lines in 1919. Sometimes it was like separating the individual strands in a bowl of spaghetti, but others times it was more akin to trying to figure out which wheat sheaves a particular strand of spaghetti came from.

So the leaseholds did matter, but not in a day-to-day operating sense.

FYI, the Sea Beach Ry. Canarsie Railroad and BUERR were merged into the NYCRR in 1912. -- Cecropia 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The pieces of information you're picking up are OK so far as they go, but the bouncing around of leases for fare and transfer purposes does not necessarily mean that lines were actually independently operated. The BRT subsidiaries were forever trying to avoid onerous regulatory requirements, the largest ongoing issue of which were the Coney Island fare disputes. Whenever a company ran into a regulatory road block, it was apt to go to an orginal franchise or even threaten the restoration of steam service in order to get what it wanted. -- Cecropia 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Without delving too deeply into my files, I can recall no direct change in rapid transit routings as a result of the lease cancellations and shufflings of 1904. Basically, these leases went from one BRT subsidiary to another. In the general time we are taling about (I'm being purposely vague on exact dates because I haven't the time or inclintion at the moment to dig out details) the lines you mentioned ran like this:

• West End elevated from Park Row via 5th Avenue el to West End Terminal, Coney Island.
• Sea Beach elevated trains from Park Row via 5th Avenue el and West End Line to Bath Jct., the Sea Beach to Coney Island.
• Sea Beach-65th Street Line trolleys from Bay Ridge el terminal to Coney Island.

Culver Line at various points was a regular circus: Culver elevated trains from Park Row to Culver Depot; Various Culver trolleys from many Brooklyn points to Culver Depot; LIRR steam trains used parts of the Culver Line at different times.

BTW, the original Culver Line (from Greenwood (9th Avenue and 20th Street) to Coney Island had trolleys until 1956. -- Cecropia 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking more about the internal workings; sorry if you don't know about them. When the Public Service Commission says that the West End trains were operated by the Nassau Electric south of 36th Street, what does that mean, and how was it different from the Sea Beach operations via trackage rights? --NE2 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that when the train passed from BUERR trackage to NE trackage, it technically became a Nassau Electric train, operating under the rules and franchises of the Nassau Electric. On a trackage rights arrangement the train would technically remain whatever it was, but use the tracks of the other road by agreement. -- Cecropia 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean that the workers on those trains were technically employed by both companies? --NE2 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the way the leases were written, but the chances are that the employees' checks said "Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company" on them, but that the company accountants sorted out what parts of their salaries were paid by which company. This sort of accounting was not uncommon of railroads. Until the commuter tax was eliminated in New York City, LIRR operating employees had a portion of their salary go to the NYC non-resident tax, based on how much of their runs were within the City Limits.

If you've ever seen a pre-1929 Brooklyn streetcar transfer, you will see that the transfer may say "Brooklyn Rapid Transit" on it but, in small type there is a code such as "N.E.R.R." or "C.I.B." to indicate the legal road issuing the transfer. Any given conductor might carry a couple of transfer books in his pocket, bringing out the correct one depending on what part of the route he was on.

When a company comes to financial grief, one of the leased companies may suddenly come to life again. Brooklyn City Railroad emerging from the bankrupt BRT is a good example. Another example is the Providence & Worcester Railroad. All but forgotten as part of the NYNH&H and then Penn Central, it broke away and resumed operations when PC went belly up. -- Cecropia 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey what's up, i noticed something strange about what you said that pahighways.com is a personal site. Well take a good look for your self at the bottom of the page where it cites information from Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, AAA, and other cites. You were wrong about the website it is a reliable reference why do you think every pa route article uses it. But respond at my talk page becuase if what i've found out is true, then is PA 65 a good article? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So it's impossible to make a PA Highway a featured article since that's their only source. No way is their a book about routes in the library i even asked 7 people and they saide "no". So if this site can't help me than nothing can. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean the history, right? its the only section that needs references not pertaining to pahighways.com. What about DeLorme since i can't use pahighways for the length ref can i use Delorme Street Atlas USA 2007 for the milage in the table as wel;?? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That solves the length problem what about the table and exit list? it needs the mile for every intersection. Can i use DeLorme for that? -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS:I'm not really using this information that your telling me for PA 65 since it made my head hurt. I'm using it for PA 145. Check out how it looks and i'm still working with references on the history. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PA 145

Hey, could you do me a big favor and take a good look at Pennsylvania Route 145. I have to get the opinion of good reviewer like your self. What happened with PA Route 65 i don't want it to happen with the PA 145 article. Anything wrong like references, or style of writing, or missing something.. anything please tell me, thank you. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this map and several other maps. ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Lehigh_1941.pdf -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the history and added a new reference. But i still need more info on the history. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 25:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please say what you have to say about PA 145, i hope it's good comments becuase i worked extremly hard on this article 5x harder than PA 65. If you say something negative, I'll go crazy and say to myself wikipedia is harder than college. Check out how it looks on Thursday. -- JohnnyAlbert10 1:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for taking care of SEPTA Route 125. I just came across it while looking through a new user's contributions, and not being really in on the public transportation side of things on Wikipedia, I wasn't sure what the correct course of action was. I agree wholeheartedly with the redirect. -- NORTH ^talk 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 (New York City Subway service) unreferenced?

What do you mean that the article is unreferenced? Its route line is indicated and referenced here. The published timetable serves as a reference herePDF (209 KiB). Its service history, as well as others, are referenced here. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bug this guy about where the info comes from. However, it can be implemented that this site can count as a secondary source, the same as nycsubway.org and Station Reporter, which are all allowed. Yes, I did read on WP:RS. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why do they show up as references on almost every page within the subway scope (not counting talk pages and such)? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They count as secondary sources. They get their info from other places. Ask them where they get it. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just a reminder! --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying don't always go on overkill with sources. You've kinda gone overkill with it for a while. But we should rely on WP:IAR so we don't have to stick with one thing alone that people constantly waste time on every day. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I lost"? There is no contest here. What we're discussing are sources, and we shouldn't get off topic. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All of this stuff on sources on the namespace are an uphill battle.... I feel like many editors worry on attribution because it gives them something to do. Stupid things like this make me want to give up on Wikipedia. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Heights

There should be a comma or "and" between A C. They are two seperate services, not one. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Transfer

First of all, I would like to let you know that CanadaGirl and I are the same person, this is simply a role account for things such as fixes in the category namespace (edits that don't hold much quality in an edit count).

I originally added that link to my ToDo list when this revision was the current one. My intent was to split out the two meanings (which has been done already by someone else), and expand the transit related half. I have been meaning to clean up my ToDo list for some time (more than just that entry), but I've been busy with my category work. CG janitor 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Hey NE2, since you do Ga reviews and your a roads person could you please review Pennsylvania Route 145 and pass or fail it to become a good article, thank you. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 0:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unused highways

Per discussion in the AFDs for List of unused highways, one of the items that needed improving upon are sources. Seeing as how the page is getting flooded with various unreferenced items, do you think a culling of unreferenced materials (or commenting out) would work? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to go through and comment the ones without facts. It's getting just pathetic when people keep adding more and more stubs (when a few aren't!) with no citations. Perhaps I can redo the template at the top and put a bright red border for emphasis :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

i noticed you removed a lot of info, claiming it to be copied from another page. i disagree with you and want an explanation for the removement. is it considered copyright info? you can talk to this on the NYCS discussion page. The Legendary Ranger 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of way we can get that information and reword it so it won't look copyrighted? the information is very vital for the article. The Legendary Ranger 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seek consensus please.

NE2, I've noticed you've made a lot of drastic edits to many articles and templates that a lot of people worked on. Instead you go ahead and make the change anyway. I've already had this discussion with you. When you make a proposal, or make a drastic edit to the namespace articles and templates, you need to get some sort of approval from the rest of the community, like us at WT:NYCPT. Allow up to at least a day to try to see what other people have to say about your ideas. And as you may see at Template:NYCS and Template:Infobox NYCS, I've reverted most of your edits back to their original versions, so everything is back to the way it is, except that your own credibility has been damaged.

I hope that you take this notice seriously, as we have already had this discussion before, there should be no real reason that we should have it again. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you please try to see what other people have to say? They might disapprove of it later on, if not now. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to present any ideas, bring them up on te project page. It's more considerate and everyone can have their opinions as well. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles says to avoid boldface, but that doesn't mean we can't. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reason why we should boldface, according to a past discussion about NYCS templates in August.

• The adopted standard of the project is that services are always referred to in bold, such as Q, not plain Q. The use of these templates ensures that this standard is followed. If the standard is changed in the future, as it well may be e.g., to , the change would be trivial to implement. I also say this because you removed a lot of templates and replaced them with redirects, which I find unnecessary. Here's more.

• Should the service articles be split, the change can be implemented easily. This has happened twice recently, when F-V and A-C were split into separate articles. Those references that used the templates were fixed in minutes. Those that were hard-coded took hours.
• They are an immense labor-saving device. It is easier to type {{NYCS|Q}} (10 characters) than [[Q (New York City Subway service)|Q]] (44 characters).
• They make editing much easier. In articles that refer to many different subway services, that 44-character furball is awkward to read and manipulate — bearing in mind that they are lexically equivalent to just a single character. I would add that the use of these templates in articles not maintained by the NYC Subway project suggests that other editors have quickly caught on to this very simple standard.
• They make it easy to find all references to the service, should a mass change be required. Due to the hassle of typing or cutting-pasting the aforementioned 44-character furball, if the templates did not exist, lots of editors would be tempted just to type Q. Given the many hundreds of subway articles, there would be no chance of easily finding every use of the bare letter Q. Hope this helps, --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did that come from? No one discussed that the J and Z would be split. There should be no reason to split it anyway. They are the same two services, the Z is a skip-stop clone variant of the J. And why do you want to use redirects? We have the templates for a reason. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If possible, we can modify Template:NYCS to have a ParserFunctions switch method. I'll do this. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of service links can be found in Template:New York City Subway. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the switch. For now, just don't insert redirects to replace templates, as you've already did, which I will now start the slow, steady process of reverting now. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make controversial edits without seeking consensus. Thank YOU very much. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC has been iniated

NE2, it is about time that you learn on how we work on Wikipedia. Your consensus-breaching and talk page habits will no longer be accepted. I have opened up an RFC for you, hoping that you will learn on how we work on Wikipedia. I ask that you look into the RFC for the remainder of the week. I hope you will learn about working with others with comments left on the page. Thank you. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 4	24 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news March 16 IRC Meeting Deletion debates Kentucky and Utah projects demoted Featured subproject A quick look at the structural integrity of state highway WikiProjects Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move warning

Regarding Astoria Boulevard–Hoyt Avenue (BMT Astoria Line), I predict that you will get a rebuke by Imdanumber1, becuase he strongly pushed for article title names based on The Map. The subway map and [1] does say "Astoria Boulevard." Similar warning if you plan to do 39th Avenue–Beebe Avenue (BMT Astoria Line) as an example. Just a word of warning. Tinlinkin 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not part of the discussion on station naming. Therefore you better ask for suggestions from other people. I would go with the name most people would see. That could arguably be Astoria Boulevard from The Map or online info, or Astoria Boulevard-Hoyt Avenue if you go to the station itself or pass by it. For the Flushing line stations on Queens Boulevard, I know the secondary name is of the same size as the primary and I remember there was a controversy over their removal. Those station names at present look OK to me. Other than this, it's better to discuss with a wider audience. Tinlinkin 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access icon

The International Symbol of Access (ISA) should be used in the {{access icon}} template in place of a free symbol because it is an international standard and is allowed to be used according to its standards by the International Organization of Standardization. A free symbol should NOT be used because any alternations of the ISA may cause offense to handicapped or disabled persons, according to someone who works with such individuals. The ISA is copyrighted, however, the copyright is to protect its design for style, shape, and proportion – NOT to hinder its use. Its purpose is to be used "to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and usable by all those persons whose mobility is restricted."[2] Therefore, the usage to mark a transit facility as accessible its permitted within its guidelines. Many places, for example, Ontario, require the usage of the ISA to denote accessibility:

"If accessible facilities are to be identified, then the international symbol of access shall be used. If facilities / services are designed to be universally accessible, then this sign is required. The official symbol indicates to persons with disabilities that they will have reasonable freedom of movement within the building to which it is attached." (OBC A-3.7.3.1)

–Crashintome4196 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Autoformatter

I fixed it. Regards, -- Darkest Hour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oiled road

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Oiled road, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.104.18 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of NYCS stations

Wow. You didn't have to, but since you took upon the hard task of reorganizing List of New York City Subway stations yourself, I congratulate you. You certainly made it easier and manageable when you created {{NYCS row}}. You also figured out the biggest implementation issue in my view: correct alphanumeric sorting of station names and consistent station naming (by street name). I would only suggest two things:

1. to make the station name the default sorting key, which I suppose you would get to anyway as part of cleanup, and...
2. include time periods. When I looked at 59th-Columbus Circle with 1 and 2 without any notes, I found it shocking until I remembered the 2 operates there at night only. I think without the time periods, the services will appear misleading.

Other than that, great job! Tinlinkin 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolley/Tram

Ah, sorry about that—I'm doing a search and replace and trying to make sure that I don't accidentally change any of the trolleybus links. Guess I missed that one; thanks for the catch. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International wheelchair symbol discussion

A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NY Times article request

I noticed your request at the Newspaper/maganize request page. If you haven't received this yet, I can send you a pdf of the article by email in the next hour or so. --Polaron | Talk 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snidely

He shows up in this Yahoo search:

Snidely Whiplash. The one you see on the Wiki article is a more modern image of him but one that compliments all the incarnations to include human movies. Ronbo76 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He shows up as two different entries. I am willing to go with the flow, but he has been on this article since I put it on Watch back in February. I used to watch him (and still do the cartoons. Ronbo76 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. I have been doing searches. I am on dial-up so my searches/replies/reverts/answers are slow. This is one of the more modern incarnations of SW. Looking at all the pictures you can see the progression from the 1969 cartoon to the movie. Recommend we stay on the talkpage so I only have to keep one window open. Ronbo76 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

The summary says it is from 1911. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but how could not be published before 1923? John Reaves (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with publishing? John Reaves (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we not assume good faith in the uploader? What exactly are saying is the difference between publishing and producing? John Reaves (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, would you be willing to contact the uploader and see what they know? John Reaves (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and delete and if he can find out when the author died, I'll restore. John Reaves (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NYCS

Has consensus been reached to not revert the template back to bold? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are looking at subway line information. Go to the published timetable. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The line information is just as worse. There is no date as to when it is current as of. Published timetables say the day they whey are accurate as of the date they are published. Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park, as indicated on the schedules is a better name than Grand Army Plaza, as indicated on the Map due to space limitations on the map. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The MTA is a very discombobulated organization. I choose not to question them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation? Although it is currently a two-way discussion, it is a discussion that can have a great consequence on the WikiProject. Tinlinkin 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Baltimore MTA bus lines pages

To NE2 from Sebwite:

For the past several months, I, with the help from a few others, have been working on a page dedicated to each bus line in the Baltimore area, something I have just recently completed. I do very much like your idea of having a page like you created called List of Maryland Transit Administration bus routes. In fact, I planned one day to create something like that myself. At the same time, I do believe there should be individual pages like the ones I made.

Please keep it up in finishing up the page you started. It is very helpful. And if you know something more, please add it there. But at the same time, please do not delete the pages I created. Instead, please link them to one another. The purpose of the pages I made is to provide a description of what each line currently is, what areas of town and major landmarks it serves for which it would draw its ridership (such as schools, hospitals, malls, or tourist attractions), a step-by-step history detailing to dates and descriptions of each change (which shows how the line was shaped), and any other interesting information about the routes, such as their impacts on the communties they serve or controversies surrounding changes they have undergone.

The idea of having a page devoted to each individual bus line in a transit system is not a new one here. I have seen in with the systems of other large cities, and I do believe it makes sense in a Metropolitan area with a population of 1 million one more.

Sebwite 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up response about No. 51 Line

As you mentioned, changes to lines should be major ones and not just small ones to serve new shopping centers. The project in which I have written about every bus line has been on-going. I am not trying to build Rome in one day. For some bus lines, I have been able to find quite a lot of publicly available information. For others, I have only been able to find minimal amounts, including some that have been around for a quite a long time, such as the No. 51 Line. Some of the lines date back to the 1890s as streetcars, and others have only been around less than a decade. Therefore, the amount that can be written about each line will vary. Whenever I can find information that I previously have been unable to find, I plan to add it.

And there are times that indeed, a routing change to serve a new shopping center does matter a lot. For example, the No. 17 Line was modified in 2001 to serve Arundel Mills. Its level of service was greatly increased at that time, with the addition of Sunday service and other off-peak service beyond BWI Airport. This was more than just a small deviation added.

Sebwite 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NYCS time

But why not, when {{NYCS}} has made this template obsolete? I really do not see the subarticle being moved anytime soon. If that's the case, then at least reinstate the bullets between the letters/numbers and the inline spaces. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They'll work; just use   which is an inlined space. Example:  , then •, then hit the space bar. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)