Talk:Q (New York City Subway service)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in New York City Mid‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance).

the desegnation (Q)was once used on the IND 6th avenue line.

Does anyone have any information on this?

During the period of Manhattan Bridge south side closures, Brighton Q trains ("orange Q") operated on 6th Avenue. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so the Q ran on BMT Broadway before the Manhattan Bridge reconstruction?

A few useful links:

• nycsubway.org - Historical Maps
• Line By Line History

It looks like whenever the Manhattan Bridge south tracks were closed, the Q used Sixth Avenue and 63rd Street. There was not a time that the

IND 63rd Street Line

was finished, but the south tracks were closed - thus the Q never went beyond Queensbridge-21st Street.

And yes, whenever the south tracks were open, including before the reconstruction and currently, the Q used Broadway. I'm not completely sure about this, but I believe the only services using the Chrystie Street Connection to the Manhattan Bridge, when the full bridge was open, have been original IND services (letters A to F). Basically the A-C-E used Eighth Avenue midtown and the B-D-F Sixth Avenue. However, as the BMT letters were originally assigned by Brooklyn line, there may have been a supplemental service to those. However, post-Chrystie, the IND letters became affixed to the Brooklyn lines - the B on the West End and the D on the Brighton, and any more through the connection would probably overload it. In fact the T (the old West End number) was completely eliminated in 1968, though I think the Q was always only on Brighton. Some of this may be wrong; do your own research as well if it's important. --SPUI (talk) 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks

The train picture looks photoshopped to add the Q to it.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

JYolkowski // talk 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous AOL contributor has been adding information on a service change to the Q that will supposedly cause it to run local in September. I have been unable to find any evidence that this is the case, including scouring all of the recent MTA announcements and their "service changes" section, as well as doing a news search. I invite the contributor who wishes for this information to stay to show that it is true using

This has been going on for quite a while now. Someone keeps modifying NYC subway articles. The changes are reverted, and a few days later he puts them back again. The offender can clearly see that people are asking him for evidence, and none is ever offered. Marc Shepherd 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. If there are such changes, the MTA would say so. I have contacted himm to refrain from making unverifible contributions. --

According to this SubChat thread, it's just random nonsense. Just ignore him and revert on sight. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • Snakes on a Plane)} 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The service history is kind of a mess. It mixes accurate information with inaccurate information plus inferred information which isn't quite correct. I'll see what I can do. -- Cecropia 03:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please do. I did what I could in the little time available to me, but not being a New Yorker, found it tough going...

Suggest totally dropping the use of the word "Beginning", as it leaves the question begging until when, particularly in the earlier years. I fixed a handful of these with more explicit "During", and so forths, as best I could guess.

1. I also added a bunch of {{
   unclear
   }} tags as this is in rough shape indeed. Hovering over them on the rendered HTML will give the content of what is confusing.
2. Broke the history into subsections and renamed "service history"... I suspect, erroneously now that I see the upper part of the page again. That there may be a better date breakdowns I don't doubt, but I was here by accident pursuing the mysterious redirect
   1 (BMT) (edit talk links history
   )
3. That represents (from what I can see) one of the worst named redirect pages in history.
4. The article even has (at least one) link to a BMT disambig page... I'd have fixed that, but lost it on the edit page.
5. The overuse of wikilinks is cautioned against here in such an article.

Cheers, and good luck Yankees fans! (Boooooo! Hisss! <G>) // FrankB 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Yankee fans from Brooklyn, but I'm not one. Brooklyn Dodgers fan, and then early Mets fan when the Mets lineup was practically the Brooklyn Dodgers Government-in-Exile (but no sym-phony). -- Cecropia 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack!!! No wonder my subconscious self was ignoring this. It's disturbing, like the socks in the corner of my room that I know I should put in the hamper, the ones I see them moving out of the corner of my eye but when I look straight at them they stop (and what is that rustling and chuckling sound when I look there?) There are a few outright errors that are the easy part. It's the unclears and the spaghetti that really need the work. -- Cecropia 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version has a disambiguation redirect to

I changed it back to J/Z. If you're going to use a dablink to another article, it should not be a redirect. The Legendary Ranger 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as per TLR. The same goes for other articles and its content. –

talk • contribs • email) 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You're wrong again.

"This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not." --NE2 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with NE2. Marc Shepherd 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice they say sometimes, not always. Besides, the J/Z article does contain info about the QJ.

Wait a minute, why don't we just create a section about the QJ service on the J/Z article? We could redirect it to that section, and I wouldn't care then. It would probably stop all this trouble, and everyone gets what they want: NE2's passion of redirects, and my information on the QJ. Is this any better? –

talk • contribs • email) 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The trouble with that idea is that the QJ is merely one of at least half-a-dozen defunct services that ran over that route, or portions of that route. The QJ doesn't logically "fit" into its own section. Marc Shepherd 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue: right now the QJ is covered in the J/Z article. But that's not the only place to put it; it could conceivable be covered in an article about services that run through the "Nassau Loop", or a general article about Chrystie Street changes. --NE2 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the dablink is necessary. Is it possible that Q could refer to QJ? The service would have been called QJ and not simply Q, would it? Tinlinkin 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these two-letter services are covered at the first letter -

QB... Someone could go here expecting to find the QJ. --NE2 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

To me, too many redirects are very confusing. That's why I want us to be careful when using redirects. The Legendary Ranger 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for missing this along the line, but I've seen pictures of the Q train logo as a white Q on an orange circle (as in the B/D/F/V), as opposed to the black-Q-on-yellow-circle I'm used to. Can anyone explain this for me? Does it have something to do with the Manhattan Bridge repairs? --74.72.201.17 12:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait - I just read the uncharacterized question about the Q/Sixth Avenue line at the beginning. That cleared things up. Apologies.--74.72.201.17 12:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are still some orange Q signs around. One of the signs on the east side of Eighth near the Port Authority has an orange Q. dcandeto 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the station too. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the map in the infobox to show the extension of the Q to Ditmars Blvd?Avman89 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. R36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an edit. Weekday services goes to Ditmars. Late Night and Weekend still 57th. —Preceding

Needs 49th stop on the map--

IGeMiNix (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, one additional note, I reverted the vandalism that had been made to the union terminal redirect, to now link to the proper page. (page history) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union terminals were made to consolidate different railroads into a single location for ease of transfer. For decades before Coney Island terminal was made, It was operated by a single company- the BMT/BRT. While the IND now runs there, the BMT and IND have simply been divisions of NYCTA/its public predecessors since any time that the IND has been there.

It is also not a mainline railroad station for the city which they are in, which is common trait to all Union Stations. Nor is it operated by a terminal corporation, which although not consistant, was a frequent trait of union stations. Furthermore, Union Stations are known as Union Stations or Union Terminals. Coney Island has never held the title "Coney Island Union Station" or "Coney Island Union Terminal".

Coney Island simply does not really follow any of the definition of Union station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.166.124 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has countered any of my points- I am reverting it back. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)(same person as above, different computer)[reply]

First off User:Acps110, let me ask you this, how am I vandalizing? Secondly, I'm just following through the MTA official website (as you told me I have to provide proof sources) and the Q's schedule CLEARLY states that it operates between Astoria and Coney Island from about 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Thirdly, saying trains operate from this stop to that stop for example, just like I'm seeing in other NYCS service articles, only misplaces the word between. Trains operate in both directions and same goes for other public transportation systems in the world (not just the NYC's subway), not just one direction!

Also, it seems quite obvious that you like the article the way it is and that's why you keep on reverting me, threaten me with warnings to be blocked from editing Wikipedia as you left the message on my talk page. What I putted on the article was correct because the MTA's schedule for the Q service from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., it operates between Astoria and Coney Island. I've said this NUMEROUS times already but I assume you just keep on ignoring me and reverting me left and right.

And I know what Wikipedia is, I am not going out of my way to edit war and get blocked but however, the way the info about the Q service in the introduction section as well as the

• A question for Acps110; is 68.194.58.106 introducing factual errors? I'm not challenging your assertion, I really don't know. Tiderolls 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is introducing factual errors, by jumbling up the service. His version reads as if a train travels from Queens to Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan, then back to Brooklyn all in one trip. As I pointed out to him a number of times ([1], [2], [3]) the lead of the article is a summary of the rest of the article (per

WP:LEAD), so it should be in a similar order to the rest of the article. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for bringing your concerns here, Acps110. 68.194.58.106, can you appreciate Acps110's point regarding

WP:LEAD? Perhaps there exists a way that the wording could be addressed in another section. Just an observation from an uninformed perspective. Tiderolls 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, then I apologies for my unintentional actions over the Q's page. Next time when I edit, I'll make sure how to use the sandbox first and learning how to rephrase the sentences I make to an article. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I apologies for the personal attack I left on your talk page Acps110. I didn't realize that I lack basic language skills to the articles here at Wikipedia. Just frustrated and confused, having difficulty trying to re-word the sentences I make. Thanks for the help by the way. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is on right now. In the meantime, can I ask if you please go through my edits on the Q article? Just want everything to be solved before going back to touch the article. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already reviewed the history after seeing the AIV report. I think it would be best if you hold off editing until Acps110 has responded here. I'm in no position to dictate your actions, I just want all parties to be careful to avoid a

three revert situation. Tiderolls 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140506200215/http://web.mta.info/capconstr/sas/sas_description.htm to http://web.mta.info/capconstr/sas/sas_description.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R188 7 train and I have been in an endless debate on what should be the top picture in this article. Therefore, I would like you to help me vote for a picture to use in the infobox so we can settle the debate once and for all. Here are the options that will work best:

Personally, I like the sixth picture (at Kings Highway) since it is located outside and not in a dark environment. While R188 7 train prefers the seventh one because it is located in a new station. Neverthrless, it is up to you to determine the final result.

When you get the chance, please vote for what you think works best. Afterwards, the winner will be chosen and it will become the top picture.

--Davidng913 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be the two Lex-63rd pictures (either one is fine with me), third place would be the Kings Highway picture. This is not really relevant to this specific topic, but I really don't agree with the trend of having every infobox pic be outdoors, since 1) most routes are underground for most of their routes, so underground pictures are more emblematic of the routes in my opinion, 2) a lot of outdoor pictures are actually in not very scenic locations or are far-away 3/4 views (I personally prefer more close-up pictures of the front of a train)

PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't particular care whether the picture is outdoors or indoors, but the 6th picture seems to be the only one with a full "Q" sign, including the circle around it, and it is also the most close up (or nearly so), so I think it is the most appropriate to depict the Q line. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a toss up between the 7th and 8th picture for me. I see a few lights out on the 6th picture, so that's not really a full "Q" sign. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In order, I guess #6 (Kings Hwy pic), #5 (second Lex pic), #1 (first 57th St pic). I was thinking about #8 but it's pretty dark. On the other hand, #7 is too bright. The others are off center; I may be fine with #4 instead of #5, but I feel like #5 has better lighting. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the seventh picture. The one with 96th Street is much better. Yes it is too bright but compared to the one in Stillwell Avenue this one is much better. So I suggest that the seventh picture stays. R188 7 train (talk) 1:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The seventh picture will stay for now, I guess. Please do encourage more people to leave their messages on this post until we reach an agreement. We may also need to ask people to upload better pictures in the future. Davidng913 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

> Some people wanted me to get pictures up here so here's my two cents. Pinging @Davidng913 and R188 7 train:, who are debating over this topic.

Mtattrain (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtattrain: I am using your second picture. Let's see how well it works.Davidng913 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

> Turns out R188 7 Train was a sock puppet of some dude who edited lots of Russia-associated articles. Guess there is no more debate. Mtattrain (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I learned today that the Q train has a northbound-only rush hour service variant via the BMT Fourth Avenue and Sea Beach Lines—a service pattern that is not currently reflected in the article. Please see this source which contains two AM and four PM rush hour Q trains to 96th St-2 Av stopping along the Sea Beach Line at Gravesend-86th St. Conversely, see this source showing southbound trains stopping at Gravesend-86th; Q trains are absent. Finally, see this source for a breakdown of stops northbound rush hour Q trains make along the Sea Beach (local) and Fourth Avenue (express) lines.

I have drafted versions of an updated Q service pattern chart and a list of stations containing both service variants in

Do you have evidence that this is an ongoing variant service pattern rather than a temporary partial reroute due to construction or other issues? Kufat (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]