Jump to content

Talk:List of metro systems: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gcycaas (talk | contribs)
127 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{talk header}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Trains|class=list|importance=High|Subway=yes|bycountry=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=
{{WikiProject Trains|importance=High|Subway=yes|bycountry=yes}}
{{WikiProject Systems |class=List |importance=Low |field=Systems }}
{{WikiProject Systems |importance=Low |field=Systems }}
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{merged-from|Metro systems by annual passenger rides|July 8, 2014}}
{{merged-from|Metro systems by annual passenger rides|July 8, 2014}}
Line 9: Line 11:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 18
|counter = 26
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:List of metro systems/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:List of metro systems/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{TOC left}}
{{-}}


== Lagos Rail Mass Transit ==
== Airport express lines ==


Many Chinese, and not only, system tend to include airport express lines. But in no form those lines are urban rails and serving the city itself. [[User:Elk Salmon|Elk Salmon]] ([[User talk:Elk Salmon|talk]]) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I have heard that the Lagos Rail Mass Transit will be a rapid transit system. News reports state that the system will "operate over a secure and exclusive right-of-way, with no level crossings and no uncontrolled access by pedestrians or vehicles".<ref>http://www.ventures-africa.com/2014/09/eyebrows-raised-over-stalled-1bn-light-rail-project-in-lagos/</ref>
{{Reflist|close=1}}
Should this system be added to the "Under construction" list? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.113.126.253|130.113.126.253]] ([[User talk:130.113.126.253|talk]]) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:@[[User:Elk Salmon|Elk Salmon]] Can you give more explanation on what you are trying to say? [[User:Metrosfan|Metrosfan]] ([[User talk:Metrosfan|talk]]) 13:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
: I'd be very leery of doing that as the very article you reference refers to this system as "light rail" multiple times. At best, this "Blue Line" might be grade-separated, but it seems like the other lines in the system will be traditional light rail. But even with the Blue Line, my inclination is to "believe it when I see it" – IOW, if the Blue Line, once it's operational, proves to be "fully grade-separated", we can worry about the details at that point. But, in the meantime, I'd certainly oppose including it here, as even your reference is categorizing this system as "light rail". --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


== Issues with the "Service opened" date ==
== Number disagreement ==


The list in this article contains inconsistencies with which date of a metro system is considered the one when "service opened". Based on the definition in the lead, a metro system needs to be electrified. Example of an inconsistency:
The source I've added to the lead finds 148 cities with metro systems, and is up to date. This list has 160. Are there possibly light rail/commuter rail systems included in error? There is a breakdown by continent in the source as well. [[User:Mattximus|Mattximus]] ([[User talk:Mattximus|talk]]) 04:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* London Underground. Inaugurated as a steam railway in 1863. Electrified in 1890. The "Service opened" date used is 1863.
: A couple of points here. First, there's no question that a straight-up list of systems would be enormously helpful here. At least LRTA provides something like that; unfortunately, UITP does not. Second, your provided reference does say "148 cities have metro systems", which is not the same thing as saying there are "148 ''metro systems''" throughout the world, as some cities New York City, Seoul, Tokyo, etc. have more than one metro system. Third, we still have the quandary as to where to "draw the line" – for example, UITP includes Copenhagen (and some others) as "metro" systems, even though they are technically [[light metro]]s, and should perhaps not be included here... Bottom line, though: this list has been "cleaned up" a lot over the past few months, as there are many fewer "questionable" systems included than there were a year ago, as pretty much all of the "commuter rail metro-like" systems have been culled from the list, for example. P.S. I'll change the number in the lede to 160, though – I'm guessing the "168" figure is old and out-of-date. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 04:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* Athens Metro. Inaugurated as a steam railway in 1869. Electrified in 1904. The "Service opened" date used is 1904. – This one I have fixed to 1869 with refs from the history page of the official website of the operator company which clearly mentions the 1869 date.


I believe there are more similar inconsistencies which have to be fixed. The list must use either the inauguration date or the electrification date. Not a different one for each metro system. —[[User:Dimsar01|<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dimsar01|<b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b>]]</sup> ⌚→ 08:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
== Nyíregyháza metro ==


:Problem is there is no such thing as real-world, off-wiki consistency here. The Athens line was not created as a metro line but converted from a conventional branch line that still had shared operations with intercity and freight trains well into the 20th century. If anything the 1904 date is generous. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 09:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I met a few people who design Nyíregyháza underground but still no official who designed our front page Renewing email me back
:The year of opening for each metro system is when they became a electrified,actual metro rail system,an example: if the Los Angeles Subway originally open as a non-electrified railway or they originally open as a commuter rail/light rail in 1993, but only became electrified and a actual metro system in 1998, the date will show 1998, im however not sure about how the past discussion for the London Underground went and why it shows 1863 instead of 1890 [[User:Metrosfan|Metrosfan]] ([[User talk:Metrosfan|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Congonka
::The opening year should depend on the percentage of grade separation. The London line from 1863 was nothing more than a 6 km connecting tunnel between the [[Great Western Railway]] with the [[Great Northern Railway (Great Britain)|Great Northern Railway]] (and others) to form a unified network. Both Railway companies had lines in London way before 1863. Deciding on the opening date for legacy systems (like London, Chicago and Athens) is difficult because at their very first origin had not much in common with the current definition of a [[rapid transit|metro]]. I agree with [[User:Oknazevad|Oknazevad]] that the 1904 date for Athens is generous. [[User:KatVanHuis|KatVanHuis]] ([[User talk:KatVanHuis|talk]]) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The following links contain more detailed history on both London and Athens systems. From what they say, London became a real metro system in 1890 and Athens in 1957.
:::https://www.urbanrail.net/eu/uk/lon/london.htm
:::https://www.urbanrail.net/eu/gr/athens/athens.htm
:::So it seems as if those should be the dates we should be using. I am not sure if this logic would affect any of the other legacy systems. [[User:Goldeneyed|Goldeneyed]] ([[User talk:Goldeneyed|talk]]) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your reply and research. I'm inclined to choose the 1957 date for Athens too. However London had a grade-separated line in 1863, and electric traction was only reasonably developed during the 1880s so it's difficult/unfair to disqualify London based on not having electric traction. Moreover, Wikipedia works with consensus, so the vast majority has to agree with certain years/dates. [[User:KatVanHuis|KatVanHuis]] ([[User talk:KatVanHuis|talk]]) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think 1957 is suitable, because the Athens Metro was often viewed as the oldest in the Balkans and second oldest in Eastern Europe, and in the top 10 Oldest metro systems list, I think 1904 is the suitable year [[User:Metrosfan|Metrosfan]] ([[User talk:Metrosfan|talk]]) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


== Question about Sevilla Metro ==
== Ottawa Confederation Line ==


In almost all sources I have seen Sevilla's metro is considered rapid transit. I wonder why is it not included here. I also inquire about the Newcaslte system in England. Thanks! [[User:Nickmariostories|Nickmariostories]] ([[User talk:Nickmariostories|talk]]) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
It would seem that the [[Confederation Line]] which is under construction in Ottawa would meet the criteria for a metro system under construction, both in the part currently under construction and in the planned extension (fully grade separated, frequencies under 10 minutes throughout the day, and high capacity trains). It is referred to as LRT by the city and the consortium constructing the line, but as the article notes, that does not mean that it is not a metro. [[User:Jamincan|Jamincan]] ([[User talk:Jamincan|talk]]) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


:Tyne and Wear metro is not a metro, it is a light rail. I do not know about Sevilla. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 07:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
: To be clear, I'm not the unsigned editor who attempted to add it yesterday. I do, however, feel that IJBall's rationale for reverting the edit is contrary to this very page which explicitly states that the branding of the system is not a consideration for whether it should be included.


== New Taipei Metro ==
:As the article notes, the distinctions between light rail and metro systems is not always completely clear, however, if the criteria for the list are clearly not being applied consistently (reviewing the talk page here suggests that may sometimes be the case), it does raise the question of the notability of the content since it is essentially just a curated list. [[User:Jamincan|Jamincan]] ([[User talk:Jamincan|talk]]) 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


The [[New Taipei Metro]] is wrongly placed in the under construction section. Can someone fix it? I would but I wouldn't want to mess it up. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pikachu0025|Pikachu0025]] ([[User talk:Pikachu0025#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pikachu0025|contribs]]) 00:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow outside sources. That is why I was very clear in my edit summary yesterday when I removed the Confederation Line the first time – to wit: the official Confederation Line webpage categorizes it as "light rail", as do several news articles I saw yesterday. Calling a "metro" in spite of that would be a textbook case of [[WP:original research|original research]]. In a situation like this, I think we have to defer to the builder/future operator in how they categorize the line. Now, having said all that, if it's fully grade-separated, it might technically qualify as a "metro" or "light metro" system. But that doesn't matter – no ''outside source'' is calling it that. The truth is, there are some grade-separated systems that are still categorized as "light rail" by various sources for various reasons (and probably one to two dozen more that are categorized as "light metros" rather than full "metros") – when that happens we have to defer to the outside sources. P.S. Note that there is a previous discussion on the Confederation Line which I think has now been moved to this Talk page's archives: at that time I asked for a source to confirm the Confederation Line will be fully grade-separated – I don't remember such a reference being produced... So the criteria outlined at that page ''is'' being consistently applied – it's being applied how outside sources are telling us it should be applied. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 16:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


== Missing metro system ==
::: By that logic, every item on the list constitutes original research. The article itself states that whether it is referred to as LRT or a metro is not sufficient criteria for inclusion on the list, which means that we can only assess each system by the criteria set out in this page independently in lieu of an authoritative source for the list as a whole. I'm personally off the opinion that the entire article should probably be deleted - the terminology for mass transit systems is far too muddy and mass transit far too diverse to be able to produce a meaningful list - but for the time being, it should at the very least reflect what it claims to represent. [[User:Jamincan|Jamincan]] ([[User talk:Jamincan|talk]]) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


While only 3 stations, it appears to be a metro [[New Athos Cave Railway]]. [[User:Mattximus|Mattximus]] ([[User talk:Mattximus|talk]]) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: No it doesn't – the UITP and LRTA references at the bottom of the page are our primary references for what goes in to the list. Other sources supplement that. There's no original research going on here, outside of possibly the "Under construction" list, which is controversial (several editors think it should be cut from the article – I'm probably in that camp, as I think it's usefulness is limited, and it's poorly sourced and divisive...) I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your post... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 21:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


:Seems like it's a special-purpose tourist railway, not a regular metro. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Just throwing in my two cents here, being from the country. Phase 1 of the Ottawa LRT is fully grade-separated. Platforms are metro sized @ 120-150m long so in the future 4 LRVs can be strung together to form a train. Looking at the planning docs it does look like a very metro standard project.[http://www.confederationline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Document1_TechnicalOverview_06Jul2011.pdf] That being said, the fact that they use low floor LRVs and branded it as an LRT irks me a little. There are 3 systems that have LFLRVs and are called metros ([[U6 (Vienna U-Bahn)|Vienna U6]], [[Line 1 (Budapest Metro)|Budapest Metro M1]], and the [[Seville Metro]]). All of them are branded as metros by their owners this shows willingness to keep the line at a metro standard in the event of service changes and extensions. In addition these lines stayed with LFLRVs due to legacy engineering constraints; Unlike Ottawa where an LFLRV is chosen even though it is new construction. This could mean that Ottawa's final 40km long system might have road crossings in the next phases and is actually an LRT system with a very high standard central corridor. IMHO I would leave it out until the system is complete and professional organizations have opinions on it.[[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah, that's the concern on my end – that this system is going to end up looking more like Edmonton, or San Francisco, or Philadelphia, or Newark: a (true) central city "subway", but with LRT outer portions. But I really think it can't just be ignored that the operator calls it LRT. If the operator is calling LRT, our only choice is to demand an equally authoritative reference (e.g. UITP) calling it a "metro" before including it here... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


== China or Mainland China ==
== Poll: Metro systems under construction section ==


My edit has been reverted twice, so I think it need to be discussed here. @[[User:Oknazevad|Oknazevad]] You said we only list sovereign states, but according to [[Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_5#Hong_Kong]], special administrative region should be treated as separate from China in this list. In this case, distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required. Apperently, "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable for the list. So, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style [[MOS:NC-CN]], the term "Mainland China" should be adopted.
OK, I'm getting quite tired of the controversy and just general errors this section is generating. I know its original inclusion in this article generated some opposition back in the day.


@[[User:Dmitry.merkin|Dmitry.merkin]] Hope to hear your opinion as well. Thanks! [[User:Gcycaas|Gcycaas]] ([[User talk:Gcycaas|talk]]) 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone make a good case why it should be kept?!
(P.S. If you agree with me that the section should go, please indicate below with a "Support" response, or something...)


:No, we decided long ago not to treat Hong Kong separately. The discussion you mention is very old, and has been overwritten by numerous discussions since, with consensus dating back at least ten years.
Bottom line: It is very poorly sourced, subject to many revisions (i.e. opening dates often get pushed back more than once, which becomes an editing hassle), and contains at least two systems (the Russian ones) for which there is a substantial chance that they may ''never'' open for service. Even were it sourced, the whole section is vaguely-[[WP:CRYSTALBALL|CRYSTALBALL]]ish.
:Also, your edit actually put Hong Kong (and Macau) under the Mainland China label, so you didn't even accomplish what you intended. The list is accurate and reflects consensus on this matter as is. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 05:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So, unless someone can make a compelling case for keeping it, I'm going to be [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]] in the near future, and delete the whole dang section. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 23:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::Oh you're right, I think I made a mistake when editing the "List" section, I was thinking about the geographical mainland, thanks for pointed out! But I think "Mainland China" still suitable for the "List by country/region" section since Hong Kong there is listed separately. [[User:Gcycaas|Gcycaas]] ([[User talk:Gcycaas|talk]]) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think they shouldn't be listed separately in the by country list to be consistent with the main list. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 20:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Second that. [[User:Gcycaas|Gcycaas]] ([[User talk:Gcycaas|talk]]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Against''' It really is not that hard to maintain a small U/C List. Perhaps we can make editors that really want to include a system to create a page for the under construction metro system with all the sources and information on it like most of the U/C Chinese Metros.[[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 23:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Actually, it ''is'' proving to be a lot of work to maintain, what with people wanting to add either light rail systems, or systems not even under construction yet. This section is the single-remaining most controversial part of this page (and maybe my personal biggest "time sink" as I'm constantly having to check to verify whether newly added systems really belong or not...). Considering how little cited it is, the section should just be junked. At the least, all of the unreferenced entries should just be deleted. But I'd like to see comments from the editors who opposed adding this section in the first place, to see if they still feel the same way on this issue or not. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*I'm not against keeping the section, but can see IJBall's perspective. What if we only included systems that are physically under construction, and are called metros by a reliable authority such as the UITP, or we can find a recent article about it in a publication such as [http://www.railwaygazette.com/ Railway Gazette] or [http://www.railjournal.com/ International Railway Journal]? [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 10:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Yeah, that's the next best solution. You probably won't find a UITP reference for these under construction systems. But articles in either ''Railway Gazette'' or ''IRJ'', etc. should be possible to find for a lot of these. Those for which no reference like that can be found should be cut. At the least, totally unreferenced entries should be cut from here. But, what I'm really saying is – I'm likely not going to go out of my way to dig up references for the u/c systems myself, so someone is going to have to find references for them, or I'm just going to cut all the unreferenced entries in the near future. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Against''' The list should should be kept, as it is simply useful for readers and not that hard to maintain. For poor sourcing there is {{:template:citation needed}}, not deleting whole section. I can feel "crystalballity" in a cases of proposed systems, but we have only under constrution ones in the list. --[[User:Jklamo|Jklamo]] ([[User talk:Jklamo|talk]]) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:: The unsourced systems have been in the list for ''months''. At this point, I'm going to skip the {{tl|citation needed}} step. Look, if people don't want to see a bunch of those system deleted, editors need only follow [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]]'s suggestion, and head to ''Railway Gazette'', et al. and quickly find a reference for them. But, this time, I ain't doing that on my end... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 19:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

== Under construction metros that appear to be light not heavy ==

Macau appears to be a light metro system, not a full metro [http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/mhi-wins-macau-lrt-contract.html], it should be moved to [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]]. However, there is no 'under construction' section in that article, so I have left it for the time being. Should it be removed from this article without being placed in [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]], or should be wait for an 'under construction' section to be added to [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]]? [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 18:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the Omsk metro is now to be built as a light metro [http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/omsk-metro-design-contract-awarded.html], and therefore should be treated the same as Macau. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 12:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
: Omsk construction is frozen, but in any case it will not be a heavy metro.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:: I think I'd advise cutting both Russian systems as, IIRC, both systems constructions are currently "frozen". --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::: As far as I am concerned, Chelyabinsk may go as well.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

: Light metros are tricky... But if you have references categorizing both systems as such, I'd probably be inclined to cut them from this U/C list for now. If another reference shows up in the future calling them truly "heavy", we can always add them back later. But let me make a strange request – can you add references for these "light metro" systems to the table first, before you remove them? – That way, if I decide to add an "under construction" section to the [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]] article, I'll be all set (including references) to do that. Thanks! --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:*{{done}}. I'll leave it up to you to decide when, and if, to remove Macau and the two Russian systems. I'm having a bit of a hard time finding sources to support the remaining systems under construction, but most are now cited and I'll keep looking. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

== One more recent thought on Seoul... ==

In looking at our newest UITP reference – [http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/Metro%20report%20Stat%20brief-web_oct2014.pdf UITP's Statistics Brief World Metro Figures (pdf)] – I'm noticing that UITP considers [[Seoul Metropolitan Subway]]'s "rapid transit" system to total approximately {{convert|410|km|mi}} in length. That means we're still including something in our Seoul's rapid transit system total that UITP isn't, as our current combined tally for Seoul's metro systems is {{convert|468.9|km|mi}}. The most likely scenario here is that UITP doesn't consider the [[Bundang Line]] (52.9 km, 36 stations) to be true "rapid transit" either, as removing the Bundang Line from our currect count produces a revised total rapid transit system length for Seoul of {{convert|416|km|mi}}, which seems to match UITP's Seoul tally pretty well.

So, does anyone object to me 'paring' the Bundang Line out of Seoul's Korail entry? If there are no objections, I'll make that revision in the near future... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

: I think we need to look closer into this before we do anything. The Bundang line is AFAIK separated for all forms of traffic. What about the Sinbundang Line?[[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:: One point to remember is that UITP doesn't count "suburban rail" systems (like RER and S-Bahns), even if they meet the other criteria. I wonder if they are excluding Bundang Line on that basis? As for the Sinbundang Line, it's too short – on its own, just removing that one from our total doesn't get it down to ~410km... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]])

::: I don't even know if you have been in Seoul, but Bundang Line is part of Seoul Subway's rapid transit. The official maps in the sites of Seoul Metro, SMRT, Korail, and Metro9 all states that Bundang Line (along with Jungang and Gyeongchun and etc) are all incorporated into Seoul Subway. In fact, even [[Incheon Subway Line 1]] is considered part of Seoul Subway rapid transit, but I think this list has split it off due to the extreme name difference. Bundang is, for sure, in. To check the official map, go to [https://www.smrt.co.kr/program/cyberStation/main2.jsp?lang=e| this link.][[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== Seattle ULink ==

Just out of curiosity, where do we stand on the University Link/Northgate Link. Despite its builders branding it as light rail, absolutely nothing that Sound Transit has made public about this line could lead one to believe it is anything other than light metro. Not only does it lack grade crossings from Downtown Seattle to its planned terminus at Lynnwood transit center, wikipedia's own page on the ULink contains the phrase "University Link is actually a subway." Every possible extension of ULink/North Link all the way up to Everett has been shown to be completely grade-separated by the animations provided by sound transit (all of which can be found on youtube if you take that to be a suitable reference). The only think I can think of that would place it comfortably in the light-rail category is if its route is combined with Central link (an actual light rail) into one continuous trip, which I have not heard about one way or the other. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.116.1.11|159.116.1.11]] ([[User talk:159.116.1.11|talk]]) 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I don't know enough about this specific project to comment, however, under either interpretation it is not appropriate to be placed in this list which is exclusively for heavy rail metro systems. At a cursory glace though, as [[Northgate Link Extension]] is an extension of the existing [[Central Link]] in Seattle I would think it should be listed as part of that system at [[List of tram and light rail transit systems]]. You do bring up a perennial issue though, of at what point is a tram a light rail, a light rail a light metro, and a light metro a heavy metro. If it is deemed to be a light metro it should be included at [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]] (which I'm not yet convinced it is, as my reading is it will operate as part of the existing light rail system). [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 07:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:: My take: We should defer to how the owner/operator/builder categorizes such systems in cases like these. This is pretty similar to the [[Confederation Line]] instance – while it may be fully grade-separated, it's hard to argue when the operator self-categorizes it as "light rail". But the Seattle case is even more clearly light rail, as this is simply a fully grade-separated extension of a line that is currently fully light rail. San Diego's coming Mid-Coast Trolley extension is the same thing (fully-grade separated), but that won't suddenly make the [[San Diego Trolley]] (or even that part of it) "metro". --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Should there be a page that lists all the subway LINES? ==
I thought about creating a new page that lists all the subway lines independently. It would be great if there was one. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

:This has already been discussed and decided on that it is not a good idea. The biggest issue is the definition of a Line which is very fluid. Some systems count branches as a separate line some don't. There are a lot of inconsistencies here.[[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I honestly don't get it, though. I think picking out lines from subway maps aren't that hard, and it's easy to get citations to them (the citations here on the metro system list page could help lead us to the citations to the metro lines), so inconsistiencies isn't much of an issue. Especially with the Wikipedia pages of the seperate systems already made, just take the link of their description, and head on to the area where lines are well-explained, which shouldn't be that hard to do. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

::: [[Line 11, Shanghai Metro| Line 11]] of the Shanghai Metro has a 2 branches but it is counted as a single line
::: If this same line was in the [[Munich U-Bahn]] It would be counted as 2 Lines; one for each branch. See, there is no standard. [[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
::::For Shanghai Metro, the Y-shaped line is under one identity of Line 11, so yes, it is a single line. For Belin U-Bahn, check their lines. It consists of lines like U1, U2, U3...all the way to U8. Now if you look, the colors for U7 and U8 are mixed, but this format shows that rather than colors, the lines U7 and U8 is the way to go. So a y-shaped line in Berlin would just go by with it's Line name; not so hard to so, right?
::::(I have planned this page idea years ago, and so I know how to categorize lines like these) I understand that they're confusing, but if you go in deeply, there's actually a standard. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realized you mean a page that lists all the subway lines not # of lines. Disregard what I said earlier. However that list would be too big, maybe one for each country is better like what is done in [[Urban rail transit in China]] or [[Rapid transit in South Korea]] [[User:Terramorphous|Terramorphous]] ([[User talk:Terramorphous|talk]]) 05:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
*I think the idea of an article listing all lines would incredibly large (too large), be problematic from a maintenance perspective, not overly useful from an educational perspective, and breach [[WP:NOTDIR]] from a Wikipedia policy/guideline perspective. Therefore, I oppose it. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Terramorphous}} {{ping|ColonialGrid}} I had actually created a prototype of the site previously, and it really didn't go ''too'' far...eitherways, just let me have a chance. I believe it would fill in information that's unknown yet. Have you noticed that there's nowhere that states of the longest (or the shortest) subway line in the world? And Colonial Grid, I agree Wikipedia is not a directory, but that doesn't strike the concept of a metro line page; you have a subway system page, both pages are doing the same function. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 21:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::*Why did you bother asking if it's a good idea if you're going to ignore what others say and do it anyway? This isn't collegial or consensus based decision making. For the record, lists of buses lines have previously been deleted per [[WP:NOTDIR]], so there is precedent that lists of lines are deleted for being encyclopaedic. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 04:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Buses? Honestly I wouldn't mind, but it seems a lot more local than subway lines. I would understand if people get stunned when it comes to bus lines, since like there's probably gonna be more than a million of them around this world. Subway...I bet it's less than a thousand. If that guy was gonna create a bus line page, why not subway line pages?
:::::And also, please don't escalate this matter, {{ping|ColonialGrid}}. I was trying to ask if the people were going to be dramatically against the issue (as they did in Los Angeles Metro placard image incident). I was also trying to show these enthusiasts the alert that I'm onto a page project, so that this situation wouldn't be a reactive one. If I heard something like "Dear God, no" or "It is illegal to do so", then I would've thought twice. But seeing that the only worry here is encyclopaedic and length issues, I see it as long as I make sure these two issues are solved, then I'm fine (encyclopaedic issue, by your definition, means this page and other metro system page is not appropriate). [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 21:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::OK then. '''"Dear God, no"''' The individual systems adequately contain that information, without it being duplicated here. This is not a "List of everything about every metro system in the world". [[User:Secondarywaltz|Secondarywaltz]] ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|talk]]) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::: {{ping|Secondarywaltz}} I'm not gonna heavily defend this, but then 1) Lots of information won't be known (ex. "What is the longest subway line in the world? What is the most used subway line in the world (ridership)? Shortest? Least used? Oldest line?), and 2) I never said to add onto this page of the list. I said make a new one (like a spin-off)... [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::*Wikipedia is guided by consensus, not laws, all other editors being opposed to an idea means there is no consensus - end of story. If you can't prosecute a decent argument and convince others, then you need to accept there is no consensus walk away. In this case you have had a number of editors (well, those you haven't [[chilling effect|chilled]] away) tell you they are opposed and why. [[WP:IDHT|Are you not listening to anything other editors are saying]]? [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: ''"Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."'' - [[WP:IDHT]]

:::::::::THIS is what you have proved to me....another backfiring action right there, ColonialGrid. And with the consensus, nowhere does it state that a consensus request from a single person is fine to be ignored. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::*No ones ignoring your suggestion (to the contrary, people are responding), it's just that I (and others) disagree. You have suggested an idea and there is not a consensus (a general understanding) amongst editors that it should be carried out. This falls firmly into the purview of the bits of [[WP:IDHT]] which you glossed over: "''[i]n some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive... Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.''" [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 17:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: [[user:ColonialGrid]] As I told you, I do not have much feelings for this idea, and I don't feel any unfairness in the disagreeing. Is it possible to invite people into their own sandbox by using ping? Cause you could see it, then confirm if it's a good or a bad idea. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== Berlin is third longest (missing part of the system). Hamburg has similar "problem" ==

Part of Berlin metro system is the S-Bahn system. System length is 332 km (wiki). Other cities also include "different-type" of metro system.
The S-Bahn system only differs in that it also serves "regular" stations and also connects some suburban areas, but operates mainly in Berlin itself.
Combined size of Berlin's systems: 332 + 151 = 483 which is the third longest.

Note: U-Bahn (also Bus and Tram) is operated by BVG, S-Bahn by Deutsche Bahn (Usually in Germany S-Bahn = Deutsche Bahn operated metro-, suburban-train) . Tickets are interchangeable throughout the system.

Please adjust the list or give statement why S-Bahn system is not a metro system.

Similar problem with Hamburg (U-, S- and A-Bahn) and maybe other cities <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8070:9CA:1D00:69C3:A98A:354F:A912|2A02:8070:9CA:1D00:69C3:A98A:354F:A912]] ([[User talk:2A02:8070:9CA:1D00:69C3:A98A:354F:A912|talk]]) 16:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*This has been discussed a number of times (search though the archived talk pages), and consensus has formed that this page will follow the UITP's in explicitly excluding commuter services such as S-Bahns as they pose a grey area. You are correct though, this should be included more obviously in the body text of this list. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 17:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:: It's on my "To Do" list to revise the lede and text to this article (it was changed pretty radically in 2014 in ways that I don't think necessarily improved it), but actually revising it keeps getting pushed down my priority list... {{smiley|sad}} I still intend to do that, but that certainly doesn't prevent anyone else from improving it in the meantime! --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 17:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The Berlin S-Bahn is by all means, even by all "considerations" mentioned in this article a Metro System. It was a stable consensus for many years to include this important information. The removal is bland vandalism. It can be considered even more a vandalism act as this article does not even explain this type of urban transport anymore. A user doing researching via the list is therefore clearly misinformed or misguided. The versions including the S-Bahn system were more helpful and provided more comprehension. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.52.16.10|78.52.16.10]] ([[User talk:78.52.16.10|talk]]) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: Please review [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:Civility]] before you go tossing around words like "vandalism", thanks. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 21:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that "civil" motives are behind the removal of long-lasting and well supported content. Thanks.

== Tables ==

IJBall, I've reverted your fixed width additions to the tables as I don't think it helped with the layout. I think the table seems cramped and could have an improved layout, but don't see how forcing it to render differently will solve the aesthetic issue (it looks far too sparse at higher resolutions with fixed width). To me, the easiest way to make the table less cramped would be to remove superfluous citations (sometimes we have two cites where one would suffice); contract the [note x] style, possible just to [Nb x] with ridership notes becoming [R Nb x] and under construction becoming [UC Nb x]; and contracting terms or locations such as "Year of last extension" to "Year last extended", "Seoul Capital Area" to "Seoul" (we don't make explicit reference to other systems covering a metro area, which they do); and replacing FY in the ridership column with a dagger and note at the bottom of the table. These are all very small changes visually, but could help reduce the cramped or cluttered appearance of the table, improving its aesthetics and layout. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
: '''No opinion'''. Which I guess means I won't object if someone wants to give this a go... {{Smiley|wink}} --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
:: '''Weakly opposed'''. Seoul Metro has a massive amount of areas such as [[Incheon]], [[Gyeonggido]], [[Gimpo]], [[Uijeongbu]], and even as far as [[Cheonan]], which are all not considered the city of Seoul; it's like LA Metro extending to places like San Diego, Bakersfield, and even as far as Las Vegas. So really, wouldn't it not make sense to call the area as 'Seoul' when they're actually considered 'Sugokwon' (수도권), or 'Capital Area'? [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::*Metropolitan areas are often very large, and yes, the Seoul metro area is very large. The opening line of [[Seoul Capital Area]] is: "''The Seoul Capital Area (SCA) is the metropolitan area of Seoul''" further listing the area as 11,704km2 with 25million people. This is comparable to other large [[List of metropolitan areas by population|metro areas]] such as [[New York metropolitan area|New York]], [[Greater Tokyo Area|Tokyo]], Beijing, Shanghai, [[London commuter belt|London]], or [[Paris Metropolitan Area|Paris]] all of which are just listed by their city name in the table. Even medium sized cities such as Sydney and Melbourne in Australia have statistical areas of 12,367.7km2 and 9,990.5km2 respectively. We're also only talking about this in the context of the metro system, as defined by the table, which counts only Seoul Subway lines 1-9 and Korail's metro lines, which are far more contained within Seoul (although still serving the metro area to an extent). Your comparisons aren't fair or accurate either the distances are as follows from Seoul to Incheon (27km); to Gyeonggi-do (50.6km); to Gimpo (33.39 km - airport to airport); to Uijeongbu (19.7km); and to Cheonan (84.4km). The distances from Los Angeles to San Diego (193.6km); Bakersfield (179.4km); and Las Vegas (433.7km) aren't comparable. Also note that Incheon's metro is counted separately in this table. And that the UITP simply calls it Seoul. However, this issue notwithstanding, are there objections to the other proposals? [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: I don't know, really. I believe the capital area is what it's really called (as experience with traveling to Seoul and their surrounding areas), but really, I guess it doesn't matter too much. Still feel strange about the change, but how can I not care less. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

*I've done the changes to the notes and FY, but left the rest. I still think that Seoul Capital Area should be contracted to simply Seoul, but want go against consensus. However, what are feelings on combining notes? For example, Toronto, Seoul Capital Area, and Los Angeles have two notes for the same 'fact', is there opposition to combining then to just one note? [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 12:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== Can someone tell me what's wrong with the Los Angeles Metro- '''16 Stations'''? ==
Metro is celebrating their 80th station with the Expo Line completed. However, here it says there's 16 stations. I presume they're talking about the heavy-rail stations, but to note: isn't this the page "List of Metro System", and the category "Station"? Something's really misleading there. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:Did you read any of the notes and references? It is all clearly explained. [[User:Secondarywaltz|Secondarywaltz]] ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|talk]]) 00:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:: I understand that, but then this page is called "Lists of metro systems", not "Lists of metro systems with heavy rail". I think something doesn't compat there. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Well you did not read the LA reference which gives that number 16, and defines the other lines as "light rail". Go ahead - read the linked reference. [[User:Secondarywaltz|Secondarywaltz]] ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|talk]]) 01:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: I told you I already read that. My question's the same still. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::: {{xt|The terms Heavy rail (mainly in North America) and heavy urban rail are essentially synonymous with the term "metro"}} --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 01:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: '''^^THIS.''' Which anyone can discover for themselves if they read the [[rapid transit]] and the [[passenger rail terminology]] articles. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 02:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: Or even, I don't know, ''this'' article... --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 02:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Metros are by definition heavy rail, that is why we also have the term 'light metro'. UITP define a metro as "''an urban guided transport system, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short head-ways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows.''"[http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/Metro%20report%20Stat%20brief-web_oct2014.pdf] Light metros simply aren't capable of meeting these criteria, specifically the "high capacity trains" condition. This is why light metros have been removed from this list, and only the high capacity heavy rail sections of metro systems are included. Also, the street running of LA's light rail lines would automatically preclude them from inclusion, they are light rail lines not metro lines. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I had absolutely no idea metro referred to specifically heavy rail.[[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::: Well, "''in theory''" light metros have been removed from the list. But because UITP themselves are rather 'loose' about including "light metros" in with the "full metros", some "light metros" (e.g. Copenhagen, most of the Italian systems, etc.) are still included here. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 21:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: For [[Busan Subway Line 4]], I can't tell if it's a light rail or a heavy rail. According to the website, they say it's a heavy rail, but with it having a rubber tire and the size of a light rail, I am super confused. What's more, I don't think there's a Seoul section for the light rail page? I know there's Everline Light Rail, Suin Line, and Uijeonbu Light Rail that doesn't seem to be recognized... [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 02:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: The Korean systems are instead listed at the [[Medium-capacity rail transport system]] ("light metros") article. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 04:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

==List of Metro System's Graph Function is Failing to Work==
I tried clicking on the length tab, which is supposed to activate the organizing of the table in order of the longest to the shortest route, but right now, I see someone edited the graph that blocks the function. Please fix it. [[User:HanSangYoon|HanSangYoon]] ([[User talk:HanSangYoon|talk]]) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
: I know what the problem is, but I probably can't get to it over the next 24 hours or so... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 01:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::My bad, thanks for fixing it IJBall. [[User:ColonialGrid|ColonialGrid]] ([[User talk:ColonialGrid|talk]]) 14:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::: No problem. {{Smiley}} --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

== Where is the S-Bahn Metro system ? ==
The inclusion of the S-Bahn Metro systems were a vital part of this list. For many years. The arguments for an inclusion were striking and often discussed.
The Re-Introduction should become reality as soon as possible. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.52.16.10|78.52.16.10]] ([[User talk:78.52.16.10|talk]]) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Please see above for the reasoning for their excision – the basic reason they are no longer included is that UITP does not "include" them in its count of "metro" systems, and we follow references from major sources here. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 21:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Why should a single source/ organization dominate a complex list like this ? It is incorrect and misleading to claim that this article is based on sources alone. The section "Consideration" exactly portrays the features of the S-Bahn system. The removal of the S-Bahn entries dimished the credibility of the article and misinforms the reader on existing Metro Systems. There is no way to find credible arguments supporting a removal unless of course you aim to deliberately try keep up a non-comprehensive list. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.52.16.10|78.52.16.10]] ([[User talk:78.52.16.10|talk]]) 22:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: What you want to do here is what's known as [[WP:Original research|Original research]]. We follow references from authoritative sources on Wikipedia – the "credible arguments" for their exclusion come from UITP. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The source "International Association of Public Transport" is wrong. It claims (quote): ''Suburban railways (such as the Paris RER, the Berlin S-Bahn and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport express line) are not included.'' This statement is wrong, the Berlin S-Bahn is a Metropolitan Rail System. There is no expert who seriously questions it. When will the entry on the S-Bahn be re-introduced ? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.52.16.10|78.52.16.10]] ([[User talk:78.52.16.10|talk]]) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 10:47, 23 December 2024

Airport express lines

[edit]

Many Chinese, and not only, system tend to include airport express lines. But in no form those lines are urban rails and serving the city itself. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elk Salmon Can you give more explanation on what you are trying to say? Metrosfan (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the "Service opened" date

[edit]

The list in this article contains inconsistencies with which date of a metro system is considered the one when "service opened". Based on the definition in the lead, a metro system needs to be electrified. Example of an inconsistency:

  • London Underground. Inaugurated as a steam railway in 1863. Electrified in 1890. The "Service opened" date used is 1863.
  • Athens Metro. Inaugurated as a steam railway in 1869. Electrified in 1904. The "Service opened" date used is 1904. – This one I have fixed to 1869 with refs from the history page of the official website of the operator company which clearly mentions the 1869 date.

I believe there are more similar inconsistencies which have to be fixed. The list must use either the inauguration date or the electrification date. Not a different one for each metro system. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 08:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is there is no such thing as real-world, off-wiki consistency here. The Athens line was not created as a metro line but converted from a conventional branch line that still had shared operations with intercity and freight trains well into the 20th century. If anything the 1904 date is generous. oknazevad (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The year of opening for each metro system is when they became a electrified,actual metro rail system,an example: if the Los Angeles Subway originally open as a non-electrified railway or they originally open as a commuter rail/light rail in 1993, but only became electrified and a actual metro system in 1998, the date will show 1998, im however not sure about how the past discussion for the London Underground went and why it shows 1863 instead of 1890 Metrosfan (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opening year should depend on the percentage of grade separation. The London line from 1863 was nothing more than a 6 km connecting tunnel between the Great Western Railway with the Great Northern Railway (and others) to form a unified network. Both Railway companies had lines in London way before 1863. Deciding on the opening date for legacy systems (like London, Chicago and Athens) is difficult because at their very first origin had not much in common with the current definition of a metro. I agree with Oknazevad that the 1904 date for Athens is generous. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following links contain more detailed history on both London and Athens systems. From what they say, London became a real metro system in 1890 and Athens in 1957.
https://www.urbanrail.net/eu/uk/lon/london.htm
https://www.urbanrail.net/eu/gr/athens/athens.htm
So it seems as if those should be the dates we should be using. I am not sure if this logic would affect any of the other legacy systems. Goldeneyed (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply and research. I'm inclined to choose the 1957 date for Athens too. However London had a grade-separated line in 1863, and electric traction was only reasonably developed during the 1880s so it's difficult/unfair to disqualify London based on not having electric traction. Moreover, Wikipedia works with consensus, so the vast majority has to agree with certain years/dates. KatVanHuis (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 1957 is suitable, because the Athens Metro was often viewed as the oldest in the Balkans and second oldest in Eastern Europe, and in the top 10 Oldest metro systems list, I think 1904 is the suitable year Metrosfan (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Sevilla Metro

[edit]

In almost all sources I have seen Sevilla's metro is considered rapid transit. I wonder why is it not included here. I also inquire about the Newcaslte system in England. Thanks! Nickmariostories (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne and Wear metro is not a metro, it is a light rail. I do not know about Sevilla. Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Taipei Metro

[edit]

The New Taipei Metro is wrongly placed in the under construction section. Can someone fix it? I would but I wouldn't want to mess it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachu0025 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing metro system

[edit]

While only 3 stations, it appears to be a metro New Athos Cave Railway. Mattximus (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's a special-purpose tourist railway, not a regular metro. oknazevad (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China or Mainland China

[edit]

My edit has been reverted twice, so I think it need to be discussed here. @Oknazevad You said we only list sovereign states, but according to Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_5#Hong_Kong, special administrative region should be treated as separate from China in this list. In this case, distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required. Apperently, "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable for the list. So, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style MOS:NC-CN, the term "Mainland China" should be adopted.

@Dmitry.merkin Hope to hear your opinion as well. Thanks! Gcycaas (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we decided long ago not to treat Hong Kong separately. The discussion you mention is very old, and has been overwritten by numerous discussions since, with consensus dating back at least ten years.
Also, your edit actually put Hong Kong (and Macau) under the Mainland China label, so you didn't even accomplish what you intended. The list is accurate and reflects consensus on this matter as is. oknazevad (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right, I think I made a mistake when editing the "List" section, I was thinking about the geographical mainland, thanks for pointed out! But I think "Mainland China" still suitable for the "List by country/region" section since Hong Kong there is listed separately. Gcycaas (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they shouldn't be listed separately in the by country list to be consistent with the main list. oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Gcycaas (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems&oldid=1264760821"