Talk:List of metro systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit / By country series (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
 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
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems     (Rated List-Class)
WikiProject Systems
Portal icon Systems science portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating: List Class Low importance  Field: Systems

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I.

Contents

[edit] my compromise

this is my compromise to the several pages worth of discussion above. obviusly funiculars and people movers cannot be included. and we also cannot include regional rail. but the catch is i define regional as interstate rail system here in the US the system would be called amtrack. in the chicagoland region theres a certain train system called the metra and it connects chicago to the nearby states of Indiana and wisconsin. i would consider this a suburban type and it might not be aloud to be included but heres my compromise if the actual system by its charter lets you travel outside of the city limits but stays within the county area it can still be included becasue its the same system. even bus routes go by this system and a regional bus network usally only operates in one county unless its a large city in population and can aford to send its public transit into neighboring county's like say san franciso with its bart system. im not sure but i think that there still adding to the system and the bart system may even continue on outbound beyond oakland city. BART (bay area rapid tranist ) under this difinition can be included. also under my difinition the train network does not all have to be under ground some parts are alound to be above ground at least if its part of the core system such as you get with chicago's CTA but under this difinition we would have to exclude chicago's METRA regional/commuter trains which im fine with. and as for tokyo ,japan we can include differnt train companies just as long as there both acessible on the same fare. for instance you purchace a one day pass and they let you transfer from one train system to the other with out having to spend more money. under my difinition all subway systems of the world can be included unless there some kind of funicular or people mover. under my difinition a train network thats mostly above ground such as cleveland ,ohio including its undergound part called tower city. im not sure if Newyork areas PATH can or cannot be included becasue im not sure if a separte fare has to be leved on the customer or not if it does require a separate fare then PATH should be excluded from Newyork city's totals. as for the person going in lenth about hamburg ,germany all that sounds fine to me for inclusion into being a metro rail. and by its difinition metro should not have to have this completly within city limits criteria becasue by using that it breaks city areas into two parts the core part known as city limits and then a second part known as the inner suburbs but still in the central county. 69.221.168.185 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suburban commuter systems already have their own list. And there's no way they're technically comparable to metro systems. Your personal definition constitutes OR and isn't a good basis for a list. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the problem though, especially for Tokyo and Osaka..the above ground rail systems are not simply "commuter rail" for all intents and purposes they ARE rapid transit/metro systems. For example the Yamanote line or the Chuo line, these lines have higher frequencies than most of the "metro" lines in the world and are clearly for urban passengers..these japanese systems should definitely be included in this list in my opinion. I also looked through the archives and it seems like there was a consensus to add the yamanote line at the very least and there is a check mark saying "done" and yet it does not appear on the list? TheRationalDude (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Tokyos public transportation system is very difficult to classify. Many lines of the Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway have through-services that extend beyond the "borders" of the metro systems and go far out from the city centre, and some of them would definitely be classified as suburban rail. In other words, metro lines and suburban lines are mixed in many parts of Tokyo. But the lines are clearly branded either as metro/subway lines, or as railway lines. Yamanote Line is considered part of the railway network (read the opening paragraph of the article), and it is also an extremely busy line with high frequency of service in an very densely populated urban area. I would say it is impossible for us to clearly divide all JR/Metro/Subway/Private railway lines in Tokyo in the two categories "metro" or "suburban/urban/commuter rail". And I think it would be inappropriate. We should instead consider what external sources say about this. According to Urbanrail.net, the Yamanote Line belongs to "Other Metro-like Systems in Greater Tokyo". The World Metro Database only includes Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway. --Kildor (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Both of those sources are using a questionable definition. In other words most of the Tokyo and Osaka's above ground rail meet the definition of a "metro" better than many of the North American systems on here. Japanese systems do not classify their systems into "metro" and "non metro" so those sources are basically "making it up" to be frank (at the very least they have not given any reason why it's not included). The 2nd source in particular on the other page classified the yamanote line as a metro loop, so it's inconsistent. The definition of a metro that we are using on this site (so we should be consistent) is: a passenger railway system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency. The yamanote line does not have through services, has a high frequency and is 100% urban..it is basically in the center of Tokyo. Pretty much every station it connects to is a major business district, not a suburban housing area. Indeed the same can be said for many of Tokyo's private railways. In other words there is no reason to not include them. By the way I have lived in Tokyo for 2 years and NYC for 1 year and it honestly doesn't make any sense to me how much of Tokyo's rapid transit system is omitted from our list when they are much faster with much higher frequencies..and much more urban (indeed it is actually difficult to even define urban because even Tokyo's suburbs are substantially more urban than the majority of the cities on this list). TheRationalDude (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Alow me to go into more detail using japanese terminology to show our list is inaccurate. When talking about trains in metropolitan areas, terminology in Japan tends to focus on the term 通勤電車 tsūkin densha. Tsūkin densha is frequently used when referring to a train that has been designed to handle a high volume of passengers, such as that observed during the commute periods. Typical design is 18-meter to 20-meter long cars, with longitudinal (parallel to the aisle) or mixed transverse (perpendicular to the aisle)–longitudinal seating and multiple doors (usually three or four per side per car). If we take Tōkyō as an example, Tōkyō Metro, Toei Subway, as well as JR and all the major private railways all operate tsūkin densha (although of course, JR and the private railways also operate other types of trains). From a basic design standpoint, tsūkin densha would usually be operated as part of “subway” or “metro” lines outside of Japan. Part of the problem is that tsūkin densha frequently gets translated into English as “commuter rail” , which makes sense if you pick apart the jukugo (linguistic compound), but not as a technical term. Japan’s tsūkin densha looks absolutely nothing like U.S. commuter rail. I just looked at the Yamanote line article on wikipedia and it says it is a "commuter rail" which is very inaccurate. The definition on wikipedia of a commuter rail is entirely the opposite of what the Yamanote line is, it is not a suburban rail line. And once again I point to the many american "metro" systems in the list as well as the S-bahn that are included, while many of Tokyo's systems meet the criteria of rapid transit/metro even more so. TheRationalDude (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Metro systems are much about separation (see the UITP definition of metro as an example). The Yamanote line is probably one of the most busy and urban rail services in the world. Even at 9 o'clock in the evening, the trains are ridiculously crowded considering the high capacity trains and frequency of service. Nevertheless, it is part of the railway network (with dedicated tracks, but with a grade crossing (if that makes any difference). Even though you think it is a metro system, few sources consider it a metro system. But I agree with you that the Yamanote Line is more like a metro than the Copenhagen S-Train, Berlin S-Bahn and Hamburg S-Bahn (and in my opinion, all of them should be excluded from the list). --Kildor (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are basing this off of the UITP, the UITP doesn't specifically state anywhere that the Yamanote Line is not considered a metro. Japan's members are Tōkyō Metro and JR East. If the UITP didn't consider JR East to be a metropolitan railways (i.e., "metro") operator, they wouldn't have bothered putting someone from there on the committee. The yamanote line is mostly elevated and completely separated from other modes of transportation (as is the chuo line and many others), it is simply a loop in the heart of the city connecting urban districts (so by the strict definition it can't be considered anything else but rapid transit). Several of the "metros" on this list are part of the same network (company if you will) that have suburban services, light rail, monorails etc. And once again it doesn't quite matter what your one source about it says when the japanese sources themself consider the high capacity lines as the same as the Tokyo subways. Just because they mistranslate it when they convert it to english shouldn't matter..or when they use an odd term like "metro-like" without defining what that is. Also I am still confused since the archives show that the Yamanote line should have been added, and yet it appears it was either removed or they forgot to add it. Also it is your opinion the S-Bahn should be removed, but the consensus was that it should be included...and the yamanote and several other japanese lines meet the criteria of a "metro" far more than not only the S-Bahn but most of the north american "metros" here as well.
Let's look at this article's criteria itself.. The yamanote meets all of them (and so do other lines in Tokyo/Osaka) A metro system is defined as:
  1. an urban, electric passenger transport system - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
  2. with high capacity and high frequency of service - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
  3. which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrian - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
  4. And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems are primarily used for transport within a city - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
  5. and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
Also: The Yamanote Line is about as perfect a match as possible to the descriptions at Rapid transit:
  1. a railway system
  2. in an urban area
  3. with high capacity and frequency
  4. with large trains
  5. total or near total grade separation from other traffic
  6. electric
  7. totally independent from other traffic
TheRationalDude (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not totally independant from other traffic. And you haven't yet provided a source that support your point of view. Kildor (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right..it is elevated and separated from other traffic for the entire 34.5km except for one one way street...but then again many of the systems on this list have several road crossings, not just one. As you can see above the Yamanote line essentially *completely* meets everysingle criteria. I can show you sources in Japanese, which you might dismiss or mistranslated said terms since japanese do not distinguish much between the terms because of how vast and urban it is. The facts are your own source of the UITP even has JR represented as a metro...and your only source against it uses the words "metro like" which is not a very good argument nor does it give a definition of what "metro like" even is. For example the US BART system is much less of a metro/rapid transit than most of the JR East lines are..it connects several other cities in the East Bay outside of San Francisco and suburbs in San Mateo County it also has much poorer service frequencies and cars are designed to maximize seated passenger...The yamanote line (and the Chuo-Sobu line) line run entirely in the heart of the biggest city in the world and not a single station is located in the suburbs. I am still confused as to why the previous consensus in the archives has been overturned with no mention of it. By the way there is even a book published called Rapid Transit in Japan: Yamanote Line http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rapid-transit-in-japan-books-llc/1027023364 TheRationalDude (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Elevated? It runs in railway corridords along with many other trains and lines. It is not a separated system - it is part of a huge railway network, but with dedicated tracks. Compared with the BART which is a completely separated system. The book you are referring to is nothing more than a compiled document consisting of articles from Wikipedia based on Category:Rapid transit in Japan. In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology by prof. Vukan R Vuchic, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes", there are sections about light rail, rail rapid transit/metro, commuter rail, regional rail and more. From the section Regional rail: "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." --Kildor (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
“It runs in railway corridords along with many other trains and lines. It is not a separated system - it is part of a huge railway network, but with dedicated tracks." I don't think you understand what "separated" really means. If you go to the original source of this criteria (Passenger rail terminology), the definition is referring primarily to grade-separation. Alternatively, there is also the concept of “separation” from freight trains or other non-urban rapid transit. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with either interpretation of “separation”.
Now to get to the meat of the argument…
First, to summarize your objections to including the Yamanote Line in this article, of the five criteria that TheRationalDude has cited from the article, you've found fault with one (#5), which is really a technicality—the Yamanote Line has one grade crossing, but it's rarely used by people and all trains have priority through it. This isn’t a streetcar where the trains have to stop at traffic signals and compete with cars, bikes, and pedestrians for roadspace. In other words, the real impetus for Criteria #5 is to exclude systems that operate on city streets in mixed traffic. The Yamanote Line doesn’t operate on city streets in mixed traffic. I suggest you reread What is a metro system? submitted by BsBsBs in Archive 5 of this Talk Page. Our points are exactly the same. Furthermore, this list even says: “a metro system runs, almost always, on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way”. I would think one rarely-used grade crossing where trains always have priority on a 34.5 km line is sufficiently within the margins granted by “almost always”.
Second, TheRationalDude does have another point... You have been trying to argue that the UITP doesn't recognize the Yamanote Line as a metro, but it doesn't say that anywhere on the UITP website. You submit the UITP definition as a “source”, but if they didn't consider JR East a "metropolitan railway" operator (i.e., a "metro"), they certainly wouldn't be having JR East representing Japan on the Metropolitan Railway Assembly: http://www.uitp.org/Public-Transport/metro/members.cfm. If the Yamanote Line doesn't qualify JR East to hold this position with UITP, what does? And no, for your information, I don’t think the Yamanote Line is the only thing that qualifies JR East to hold this position, as it is only one line in a vast metropolitan railway network that functions, for all intents and purposes, identically to newer systems being listed here as “metros”.
Third, regarding your sources… I’ve already debunked your “interpretation” of the UITP definition. You also provided MetroBits, which is not by any means an authoritative source... It’s a fan-created database where one man, doing original research, has decided what to include in each city’s page: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=85876136&postcount=58. If you read the rest of that thread, you will see that there is plentiful debate on the veracity of the data. The same holds true for Robert Schwandl and his UrbanRail.net, where he expressly states that he is “simply a metro fan and not related to any metro operator nor the rail industry in any way”, although he is at least willing to call the Yamanote Line “metro-like”. Your source from Vuchic is debatable… Yes, he includes the JR in Tōkyō under his definition of “regional rail”, but his definition of “rail rapid transit/metro” does not preclude the Yamanote Line as qualifying for a metro.
So where does that leave us? Out of four sources you submitted, you only have two sources (Vuchic and UITP) that may or may not support your claim. The other two are non-authoritative sources which may potentially contain errors. As a corollary, your insistence that TheRationalDude provide sources is a bit misguided (even after submitting that two of your sources could go either way for the Yamanote Line). There is a definition provided on this Wiki page as to what constitutes a “metro” system, and if it can be shown that a line or system meets those criteria, then I do not see why we need to provide a source. This is exactly how other Wiki editors have added systems to this list… Why would this situation need to be any different?
Fourth, regarding the comparison with BART, you do realize that I can cite similar "technicalities" to discredit BART from being on this page as well, right? Of the five-criteria list summarized by TheRationalDude from this article, it fails (2), (4), and (5). Of the seven-criteria list summarized by TheRationalDude from Rapid transit, it fails (3). So in reality, BART is soundly less-deserving to be in the list than the Yamanote Line. And I know several other systems listed here will also fail some of these criteria.
So, what does this indicate?
  • The criteria cited on the page are not a good reflection of what is actually being used to “screen” which systems are included. The lines are much more blurred than you think.
  • There is confusion as to what the word “metro” really means. And I am not surprised by this… Even Rapid transit says “metros” are “underground rapid transit systems”, but in reality, many of the systems listed on List of metro systems would not qualify for this, and nowhere in the article does it state that the system must be “underground”. This is complicated by railway operators adopting the term “metro” as branding even though their services bear no resemblance.
  • Some systems failing to meet some criteria are included, while others, even though they may actually meet more of the criteria, are excluded.
I would think none of these arguments are really new… The five archives of Talk Pages, together with the points I cited above, should be an indication that this article needs quite a bit of improvement. This issue hasn’t just been raised with the Yamanote Line… It’s been discussed for a multitude of systems. 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
My point is that few consider the Yamanote Line to be a metro system. There was a similar discussion some time ago when someone wanted to include the Paris RER. The RER fulfill most critera used here. But if included, this article would say that the RER is the world longest metro system. That would be own research, since there is no source claiming the RER having that record. And when looking at other lists of metro systems, Yamanote, RER, S-Bahn, S-Train etc. are never included. This article certainly needs improvements. I would be happy if we could find a way to have more clearly defined inclusion critera, but I really don't know how... The list also needs to be consistent, but for the moment, it is rather strange to have Hamburg S-Bahn included while Yamanote Line is not. I would prefer the more narrow scope, with RER/S-Bahn/S-Train/Yamanote excluded, which also is what most other sources do. But with the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn and Copenhagen S-Train included, we should definitely include Yamanote Line as well. And that would of course also apply to a bunch of other Japan railway lines as well.... --Kildor (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, good, we’re making progress here because you’ve admitted that the article is flawed and in need of improvement.
Let me first rebut some of your points:
“My point is that few consider the Yamanote Line to be a metro system.”
—I don’t think that’s necessarily true… I’ve already provided my rebuttals above when you made this claim previously, but let me further expand that a little bit… Let’s try not to be to fixated on the word “metro”, which is not a universally-accepted word and is itself quite ambiguous. Please remind yourself that Metro (rapid transit) redirects to Rapid transit (I know you were quite involved in the debate over the page title there, so you should remember this). In fact, you should be able to find at least a few references to the Yamanote Line as “rapid transit” or “metropolitan railway”, and as stated by TheRationalDude, Yamanote Line describes the line as “rapid transit”. So I don’t think this point really holds much water. Just to close off this line of argument for good, here’s some other sources for Yamanote Line as “rapid transit”, “metro”, or whatever you wish to call it.

The highest capacity double-track rail rapid transit is believed to be the Yamanote line in Tokyo reaching 100,000 passengers per peak-hour direction.

— Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity

This presentation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), a ministry of the Japanese government, also uses the terminology 都市鉄道 to refer to JR. This would be “metropolitan railway” translated into English.
Moving onto this statement:
“But if included, this article would say that the RER is the world longest metro system. That would be own research, since there is no source claiming the RER having that record.”
—Firstly, this page isn’t a contest to show who’s the longest, although perhaps some editors feel the need to make it so. If the title of this page were “List of metro systems by length,” then I might agree with you, but the title is “List of metro systems”. The primary purpose of this page is to serve as a list of in-service metro systems, not to rank them by length. In fact, if you look at the table on the page, you’ll notice there isn’t a column for “rank”. Users can sort the data as they wish, and one of those options is by length, but simply including the RER in the list does not, in and of itself, make the article say that the RER is the world’s longest metro system. There’s simple ways around this… It’s nothing a few text changes can’t resolve. We’ve recognized that the article in its current state has issues and needs improvements, but let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to find solutions.
Secondly, when making the claim that inclusion of the RER is “original research”, you should keep in mind that much of this table in its current form already relies on original research. Look at the table notes and references, and remind yourself that I just showed that both MetroBits and UrbanRail.net are fan-based websites based on their own “original research” and prone to error, yet for some reason, these websites litter both the table notes and references. Quoting third-party sources may be able to get us around the issue of presenting original research, but our third-party sources must still be reliable—at the moment, that is questionable.
Thirdly, reading the table notes, it should also be quite obvious that Wikipedia editors have already been making conscious, independent decisions about what qualifies as a metro and what doesn’t when choosing to add entries into the table. Inclusion of the RER in the table, if done intelligently and creatively, need not constitute original research any more than these other “harmless” additions to the table, and certainly would not constitute original research any more than quoting, as fact, material from unreliable third-party sources disseminating their own original research.
Now, let me summarize some Wikipedia-related issues concerning this topic:
I think we can all agree that this is a mess, but no one seems to want to fix it.
So, my proposed solution is as follows:
  1. Modify Rapid transit to include systems which generally meet the defined criteria, including the Yamanote Line, RER, et al. Hopefully, I’ve shown that this is a no-brainer by now.
  2. Convert this page to a “List of rapid transit systems” and include these other lines and systems. A corollary that follows from (1) that also improves consistency in terminology and page titles.
  3. Rename List of rapid transit systems to List of urban rail systems and re-format it into a proper disambiguation page. An alternative would be to eliminate it altogether and just include links in Urban rail transit.
Again, I think you’ve already agreed with me that there are issues with the article… We can now take some action to improve the article. I think I’ve provided enough verifiable third-party sources to make changes, but seeing that some editors view this as a controversial topic, it would be nice to reach some measure of agreement before making any edits. Changes to the other articles would have to be vetted at the respective pages, of course. 江戸っ子 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Renaming the articles doesn't fix the problems. What definition do you want to use for this list? Currently, there are four definitions quoted in this article. These either use the term metro or heavy rail. And there are three lists used as reference in this article. All of them use the term metro. --Kildor (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, this process has played itself out multiple times on this Talk Page for other systems which are now included in the list. There is enough evidence to justify inclusion of Yamanote Line et al. provided by me and others. While I respect your choice to espouse an exclusionist screening method, the rest of the editors here, by keeping these other systems in the table, seem to agree that there needs to be a more inclusionist screening method. You have been involved in a good number of those discussions yourself, so you should remember.
All the points have already been made a long time ago, and systems have been added to the table as a result, albeit one by one. It’s time to trickle those changes down to all the other systems that should be in the table, but for which no one has taken proactive measures to include. Or do you wish to repeat this process every time someone wants to add a system? Surely you don’t suggest we should now revert the additions of Hamburg S-Bahn, Berlin S-Bahn, et al. which have remained untouched by yourself and other editors for some time now? Frankly, the people who have posted on the Talk Page concerning this topic are simply being polite and courteous in pointing out that systems have been left out. The precedents have already been set, and there is nothing preventing me, or anyone else, from adding new systems based on the precedents.
Anyways, please remember my proposed solution is simply a holistic approach that attempts to maintain consistency in nomenclature across the multiple pages relating to this topic. Whether you prefer the term metro to rapid transit is irrelevant, because the article name is Rapid transit. Let’s not bring that debate here.
Also, please be aware that objections to my proposed article name changes have no bearing on the addition of the Yamanote Line et al. based on the precedents described above. 江戸っ子 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for bringing the discussion back to the left :). Very good points 江戸っ子, I am also confused why this page is based off of the Rapid transit page and yet we use the term metro for the page. Not that I personally have a problem with this but not everyone who reads wikipedia are train fans like we are and may get confused by the change in names. I think consistency is very important. Also thank you for the sources from MLIT and the TCRP which show yamanote is rapid transit/metro. I believe we should include the yamanote line, chuo-sobu line and possibly other lines in the greater Tokyo region. This is not a competition as you said, I am not even japanese I have just realized after several months of editing and fixing japanese articles (I am a fan of japanese rail systems) and reading more in depth about the definitions here of "rapid transit/Metro" that it is very odd that systems like BART, Washington Metro, Docklands Light Railway, S-Bahn and many others were included while JR and others are not. We have some dedicated japanese rail fans on wikipedia who can edit and add the appropriate lines while not including ones that clearly do not meet the definitions. It will not be as difficult as it seems, especially since the MLIT releases good figures on passengers for individual lines. I also think we should seriously consider creating a separate page named "List of Urban Rail" (which includes urban/suburban, light rail to tram) to complement the urban rail transit page which would be very interesting and informative for rail fans. Many systems in Japan and Europe have not only rapid transit but extensive suburban, trams in the center of the city etc and it would be nice to have a page with the entire urban rail systems together. TheRationalDude (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The List of tram and light-rail transit systems and List of suburban and commuter rail systems certainly need improvements. But I don't think a merged list with all transport modes is a good idea. That list would be too long. Concerning the naming, I am still convinced that metro is the better name to use, since it is the most widely recognized term on this subject. Rapid transit was a North American term that is now replaced with heavy rail.
I accept that there are people here with an inclusionist point-of-view. And I agree that the Yamanote Line should be included if Hamburg S-Bahn, Berlin S-Bahn and Copenhagen S-Train are included. But in my exclusionist point-of-view, I think all these should be omitted. It would be more consistent with other sources and lists we use as references. And these systems are all, together with JR East, already present in the List of suburban and commuter rail systems.
But if there is no one else supporting my exclusionist point-of-view, I will certainly accept having the Yamanote Line added to the list. --Kildor (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, what I mean by an Urban Rail list..is a list by "cities"...which link to the rail transportation articles of said cities..than we can create a list of "urban rail systems by annual passengers" etc. I am just thinking of a long term plan, don't take it too seriously at the moment. As for JR..again other than the non authoritative source, and one source that uses the term "metro like" (and UITP which actually gives a case for JR being metro) I am not sure there really are any authoritative sources saying yamanote is NOT a metro/rapid transit. On the contrary, the japanese source as provided by 江戸っ子 show it as a metro..as well as the TCRP. I believe the japanese sources themself should be the most authoritative as to what kind of lines/systems they are running? As of yet I have not seen any non fan made source in english that says it is NOT a metro other than "metro like"..or one lumping the entire JR as "suburban" even though as I believe I have demonstrated several times now that american metro systems like BART or the Washington Metro meet the criteria even less so. So it simply does not make sense. I will edit the article later if there are no further objections. TheRationalDude (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Japanese source lumps the whole of JR together in a japanese term for which we don't know its definition. Make a google books search on "Yamanote Line" and you will find several examples where Yamanote line is presented as commuter/suburban rail or simply a railway line. LRTA doesn't include Yamanote as metro (which is clear from the opening year), and the Urbanrail.net is not just simply a fan-page. It is made by an author of many public transportation-related books. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have different opinions on this matter. --Kildor (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
江戸っ子 explained the definition above. And technically yes, the entire JR network is more of a "metro" as we have said many times..than some of the "metros" listed on this page. In other words I can make just as much of a case to remove the BART and Washington Metro systems since they fail several of the criteria (while the Yamanote and others don't really fail any). Though I do not advocate adding the entire JR system, only the clearly rapid transit lines. I looked through google book search and in the top page I only found one book using "commuter rail"...then it proceeds to define the yamanote line as rapid transit (service, frequency, connects only urban centers etc) so it seems they have the wrong definition or are using it differently than we are. It seems like many north american authors in particular are confused by above ground rail. It appears they think anything below ground is a "metro" and anything about ground is "commuter". All the other books simply regarded it as a "rail line" which doesn't really tell us anything. Regardless of that we have plenty of authoritative sources now from UITP, TCRP and MLIT. I don't think we really have different opinions since you yourself said the Yamanote line meets the criteria even more so than the S-bahn and even though you haven't acknowledged it I am sure you can see that indeed the BART, Washington Metro and several others when you take a second look actually do not meet all the criteria. TheRationalDude (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong

Before another edit war erupts: I think it is perfectly o.k. to list HK as another country. It's another country, owned by China. It has its own currency, it's own country code, its own government, people drive on the other side of the road, it is separated from China by a hefty border, Chinese need a visa, which is hard to get. BsBsBs (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the status quo here Talk:China seems a good place to start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No thank you. I have better things to do with my time. This is a list about metro systems, and politics should be left at the turnstile. I am sorry, but the status quo is that China, I mean, the People's Republic Of China treats Hong Kong as a separate entity by issuing separate passports, citizenships, currencies, postage stamps, drivers licenses, it treats investments from Hong Kong in China as "foreign offshore investments." To dial Hong Kong, you dial 852 instead of 86. The population of Hong Kong is not even included in the PRC's total. At the bottom of the "Communiqué of the National Bureau of Statistics of People's Republic of China on Major Figures of the 2010 Population Census[1 (No. 2)" it says: "National total in this table do not include population of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region or Taiwan Area." With that much separation, we can list it separate. One country two sets of metro systems, so to speak. Last I looked, I had to exit the Shenzhen subway, hike through a crowded border crossing, and then I could board the Hong Kong MTR in Lo Wu.BsBsBs (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a place for discussion about metro systems. Not politics or geography. In order to avoid several discussions about if X is a country or part of Y, we should base this list on a existing list of countries. Currently, the countries in this list corresponds with the common english name of states in list of sovereign states, and I think we should keep it that way. Or we can choose another list of countries as a reference. But list of countries is a redirect to list of sovereign states, which is why I believe that is a good list to use as a reference here. I see absolutely no point in having a discussion about a single country here. --Kildor (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Hong Kong may feel like a separate country to a traveler, but it's a Special Administrative Region of China, not a sovereign state, which is the most common definition of a country. Hong Kong has its own passport, currency, stamps, border control, etc. only because China lets it, and it's quite different from true sovereign states whose decisions on those matters cannot be overruled by anyone else. Zanhe (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ask anyone from the United Kingdom or Canada and they can debate the meaning of "country" with you for days. Usually in country-based lists I insist that Hong Kong be listed separately from China, but with Puerto Rico listed under the USA and so on, I think consistency is more important. Deryck C. 12:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
HK is part of China. Or it is "Hong Komg, China" if it listed separately from China in a group of nations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's just dumping common sense and readability to serve political correctness in the eye of the PRC government, which according to WP:Use English most users on this Wikipedia won't agree with ;) Deryck C. 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of China. End of story. Its not like Singapore which is an independent state with its own government. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

HK vs China is very controversial issue, but it is totally out of scope of this article (this is list of metro systems, not list of countries or sovereign states). We have long consensus (years) to list it under China, so another endless discussion is not needed (also for similar controversial out of scope issues - listing Glasgow under UK, Taiwan separately). --Jklamo (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus isn't "long-standing" for "years". Until 2009 Hong Kong was listed separately from China. The change was made in 2009 with little discussion, and miraculously a "consensus" was established because a major opponent of the proposal happened to be a sockpuppet. The large amount of related disruptions afterwards simply suggest that the change isn't widely accepted, and the archives of this talk page will tell you it hasn't really ever been properly discussed. Deryck C. 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think there is consensus to list HK as an independent country the talk page of a single list is not the place to propose it. You need a centralized discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Precisely because I don't think there should be a centralised rule about whether Hong Kong should be listed under China or separately that I'm raising talk page comments at various locations. Sometimes (like education and civil transport) they should be separate; other times (like sovereignty and military affairs) Hong Kong should be under China. I apologise if you've misinterpreted my intentions. Deryck C. 15:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Education? The PRC flag flies over HK schools. Civil transport? The systems link at the boundary, the high speed train is regional, and through trains go straight to Beijing. Your taking a political issue and trying to finding piecemeal support. It's not workable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Have you ever actually been to a school in Hong Kong? Each school in Hong Kong chooses whether to fly the PRC flag themselves. Indeed the civil transport systems link at the boundary, because there is border control. Passengers either get off the train and go through border control at the border interchange station, or go through border control at the departure and arrival stations for through trains. I find it awkward that we happily list European cross-border trains as international when there is no border control, but insist that Hong Kong-Beijing trains are domestic even though there's border control at both stations. You're taking a political issue and attempting to use political correctness to trump over reality, which isn't workable either. Deryck C. 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What's so controversial specifically about Hong Kong and the People's Republic, Jklamo? Hong Kong is just another dependent territory. It's a matter of convention and common sense, that dependent territories are countries in listings of countries. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the main arguments for keeping Hong Kong within the China listing is that it's been that way since 2009, and that Hong Kong isn't a sovereign country, neither of which are actually relevant to this list. If I don't see a new argument within a day or so, I'll go and make the actual edit. Deryck C. 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a policy about how this sort of stuff should be arranged. We can all assert our opinions until the cows go home, but some policy should be quoted here - especially given China naming is controversial. If you want to change this I think you should find some relevant policies/guidelines. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately none of MOS:LIST, WP:NC-ZH or WP:ZH give any relevant specific advice. The closest is from MOS:LIST, which recommends editors to refer to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV when determining the presentation of listed items. Taking these principles, we should look for relevant reliable sources and their take on the matter. MTR's self-description on their website clearly treats Hong Kong as a separate entity from "China" or "Mainland China" [1], so I think we should follow suit. Deryck C. 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It is true that it treats Hong Kong as a separate entity from "mainland China" but that's generally what the term "mainland China" is generally understood to mean i.e. PRC except Hong Kong and Macau. The BBC use it for example: "A 3D erotic comedy has taken the Hong Kong box office by storm, beating the first-day record set by Hollywood blockbuster Avatar. ... Takings have been boosted by an influx of viewers travelling from mainland China where it is not being screened." - the title "China and International Business" is more ambiguous however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's this "we aren't part of them, but they aren't completely foreign to us either" attitude that's causing problems for Wikipedia lists. Most companies simply choose not to take a stand, unless they must, because either way they'll enrage loads of people. Deryck C. 22:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think an RFC on whether Hong Kong should be treated as separate from China sounds like the way forward here. In the meantime I think we should probably leave it as is - but the matter has attracted lots of discussion here and so a clear guideline sounds like the way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A related one is already going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. However, as I said before, I don't agree with setting up a blanket policy about the listing of Hong Kong and Macau in "country-order" lists, so please do start another RFC. Deryck C. 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If it doesn't apply to the whole of Wikipedia what would the scope be? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Just this article, or alternatively any railway list on Wikipedia involving list items in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 13:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
May I know what'd happened back in 2009? Was there a discussion by then? Or was it changed right away and no one noticed? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are only two external lists of metros that clearly specify a country for each system. These are World Metro Database and LRTA World System List. Both these specify China as country for the MTR system. --Kildor (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I haven't taken the RFC forward is that I don't really see the value in doing a full RFC on this issue just for this article - there would be value in doing it for the whole project, but otherwise I think we should follow our sources. The MTR is ambiguous but if the other metro sources say the MTR is in China then we should go with that unless other sources are found which differ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you have ommited Urbanrail.net. And while LRTA specific China as the country for MTR, I don't think Metrobits' World Metro Database is going the same way. Both Urbanrail and Metrobits are having separate entries for Hong Kong. (And, interesting, LRTA got Puerto Rico separately.) 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from HK the only other dependent territory on this list currently is Puerto Rico. The website that was cited above, LRTA, has the US unincorporated territory listed separately. Shall we proceed to do likewise? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall proceed with Puerto Rico if there is no objection. (Although I don't agree that Wikipedia has to rely solely on external sources, let's do so in the meantime as far as Puerto Rico is concerned within this list.) 119.237.156.46 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency and in order to avoid future discussions about single entries, I would prefer using one list of countries as a reference. Currently, this list uses countries as listed and defined in List of sovereign states. Therefore, I don't think we should list Puerto Rico or Hong Kong separately. --Kildor (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is what I've been against since the beginning of this discussion. No original research means that Wikipedia shouldn't develop our house-style just for the sake of being consistent. Each topic on Wikipedia should be consistent with its relevant external reliable sources, rather than other topics on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, there is no dispute concerning the fact that Hong Kong belongs to China. Secondly, the list of sovereign states has plenty of reliable external sources. This is simply a matter on how to organize this article. By applying a principle for the whole list, we can arrange this list consistently, using the common names and order of countries as they appear in the list of soveregin states. There is no need for political discussions regarding single entries. --Kildor (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

hong kong will continue to be a territory of china until july of 2047. it has a 50 year period of autonomus statsus since 1997 before it becomes integrated into the surounding province. other former SAR regions had already be re-intregrated after world war 2. but hong kong will continue to have a territory status for the next 35 years after that it will be out right annexed. so i am in agreement with the User BsBsBs its not offically part of the PRC yet not until 35 years from now. 69.221.168.185 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request from , 8 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

|- | Porto | Porto Metro | style="text-align:right" | 2002 | style="text-align:right" | 81 | align=right|70 |align=right|43 |- class="sortbottom" ! style="text-align:left" colspan=6 | Tecnicaz (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Denied It's a light rail system, as it says right on the Porto Metro article. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Under construction

I removed this list from the article. I believe there are several problems with including systems under construction. First of all: there are few sources regarding an uncompleted system. And we cannot tell if a transit system will meet the inclusion critera before it is completed. A metro system can be in "construction" stages for many years, and some are never completed. --Kildor (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a list is also going to be inherently incomplete, missing proposed/planned/under-construction systems entirely and therefore of limited value. It's well established in the archives that the list should only include opening, operational systems. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Kryvyi Rih Metrotram system and Volgograd Metrotram system.

So my question is: "why the first one is included, but the second is not?" Since 01.12.2011 Volgograd Metrotram system has 6 underground(or partially underground) stations(length of underground part is 7,1km), while Kryvyi Rih Metrotram system has only 5 underground stations(length of underground part is 6,8km). I think Volgograd Metrotram system should be added.

Rylov Kirill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.18.121.65 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "Opened" dates

It seems to me that the "opened" dates are rather arbitrary. Specifically in the case of New York and Chicago, both had fully (or nearly-so) grade-separated elevated lines operating at a metro standard for decades before they had subways. New York had elevated lines starting in the late 1860s and Chicago was the first rail line in the U.S. to use third-rail electrification in 1895. Certainly a train system using third-rail electrification and running fully grade-separated can be considered a "metro" system, so that puts Chicago's "opened" date nearly 50 years earlier than the date currently listed, which simply corresponds to the first tunnel to open. However prior to the tunnel, Chicago's "L" had been running fine at a metro standard for 2-3 generations.

I have changed Chicago's date from the one user Eleventh1 arbitrarily chose to a date that makes much more sense within the context of the overall article - the date of the full completion of the "Union Loop," now simply called "The Loop," which is the defining feature of the Chicago "L" and as such makes a much more logical "opened" date than the date of a subway section that simply augmented the "Loop" does. Since the system is primarily an elevated one and always has been, using a subway section opening as the "opened" date would be silly. Using the opening date for the "Union Loop," however, is a notable distinction because it marks the date that the system changed from being a collection of unlinked lines with terminals in the central area, to a system of linked lines with same-platform transfers and easy, fast connections between different crosstown parts of the city - all while done via an electrified, mostly-grade-seperated system meeting all the other criteria of a metro. Emathias (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro means "underground" (it comes from the systems of Paris and London which are both underground). You can't just choose a new meaning for a word like that. With your definition, electric trams would also be metros and then the dates for Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Tokyo, etc would all be false. If your view of what a metro is is the right one then you have to change the opening dates of half of the list. Eleventh1 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not in this list it doesn't. Underground is part of a definition of "rapid transit", which is what this list uses. Trams and trolleys have their own list, List of tram and light-rail transit systems. Paris and London have metros, but so do New York City, Chicago and Boston. All of those American cities have significant portions of their metros aboveground. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't we change the name of the list? Because anyone outside of Chicago who reads metro will think underground, no? Why not use "list of rapid transit systems"? Wouldn't that avoid mistakes like mine? Eleventh1 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Outside of Montreal and Los Angeles, I cannot think of a system which is entirely underground in North America. In fact, some systems listed here are not underground at all, like SIR. On the same topic, SIR has an absurd opening date- Why should total grade separation be the opening date when such clearly isn't the criterion used elsewhere? Would initial electrification be a good standard to use?128.122.97.220 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Because anyone outside of Chicago who reads metro will think underground, no? No. "Metro" is internationally recognized as a word for rapid transit, not necessarily underground rapid transit. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Eleventh1 - you seem to be intentionally ignoring the "grade-separated" aspect which would obviously disqualify nearly every tram line in the world. Grade-separation is the key component, not being underground. Functionally, there is no real difference between a "metro" run underground below traffic and one run elevated above traffic. Neither conflict with traffic. Neither have to wait for non-rail traffic. In fact, elevated rail has some operational advantages over subways - when is the last time you ever heard of an elevated line having to shut down due to flooding? As an example, Portland, Oregon's MAX lightrail system operates a lot like a metro system in some respects and even has one underground segment. But in the center of town it runs on the street. Not underground and not elevated. So it clearly doesn't qualify. Chicago's rail runs entirely grade-seperated in the city except for the tail ends of two lines that run at grade (but still not even in the street) for less than a mile each. Emathias (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does the London Underground having its opening date in 1890? The first underground line was opened already in 1863, some other train lines being even earlier. Where is 1890 on based? It seems to me no precisely year. The first deep level "tube" line was opened in that year, but if that is the reason, many metro systems would have no right to stand here, which is curious to me. OPolkruikenz (talk) 11:00, 11 february 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts of my Edits

First of all... Thank you for recognizing my edits as good faith. However, I do not wish to rehash the same arguments that litter this Talk Page and its archives. So if you, Ravendrop, have particular points of contention, please state them here and we can discuss them one by one. I admit that some of the systems that were added are in the "gray area" (as are many of the systems which are already in the table and over which no one seems to have any disputes about), but many of them were not gray at all, and there is no logical basis for reverting those particular edits at all. 江戸っ子 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add entries like JR East as a 1845 kilometers long metro system, then you really need to provide sources that support your point of view. --Kildor (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This was really intended for Ravendrop, but since you responded...
I already gave you sources above, under the first section of this Talk Page, where I cited references to JR being referred to as simply "metropolitan railway", together with the other systems already in the table. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.
And the whole exercise we went through for the Yamanote Line, which has now been established as "rapid transit", I can do for quite a few more lines in the JR East network. Like I said, there are plenty of "gray areas", and I certainly do not think that all of that 1,845 km would really qualify (my personal opinion based on metrics of train capacity and frequency is that at least a good 60 to 70 percent would qualify). However, I also do not think individual Wiki editors should be in the business of picking and choosing which segments of which networks get counted and which don't, if it can be avoided. Not myself, and not you or anyone else. Weren't you the one objecting to original research? How do we arrive at a universal set of criteria to apply, especially when there is no consensus even in the industry and the differences are getting more and more blurred every day? How do we maintain consistency across various editors? The current state of the table already shows that the criteria we have now are not being consistently applied.
The better approach would be to leave the 1,845 km as is, and simply add text to the accompanying note saying that there are segments included which would "not generally qualify as rapid transit". After all, the "Tokyo Suburban Area" is an official zone whose limits are clearly defined on JR East's map. There is no "hocus pocus" (i.e., original research) that goes into calculating that 1,845 km. You can arrive at the same numbers if you follow the segments shown on the map. I don't think you know much about JR East, but if you did, you probably wouldn't be surprised by 1,845 km. JR East is the largest railway company in the world by passenger volume, moving 14 million daily in the Tokyo metropolitan area (source: www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/tech/pdf_5/Tec-05-04-11eng.pdf). However, if you wish, I can go into all the small minute details to convince you, line by line, and then we can argue endlessly in circles over whether this segment of that particular line qualifies...
  • Shall I enumerate the various trackage rights / interlining agreements between JR East and systems that are already in the table?
  • Shall I tabulate the peak and off-peak frequencies of each segment of each line to show you that there is not much difference between many JR East lines and the systems that are already in the table?
  • Shall I provide you with passenger throughput data to show you that the most crowded lines in the Tokyo metropolitan area are actually JR East lines?
  • Shall I calculate train capacity and post pictures of the interior to show that there is no material difference between JR trains and Tokyo Metro / Toei Subway trains?
Did we do that for every system that's currently in the table? Why should we apply this "inspection process" strictly to JR East?
Also, just another thing: Whether you agree with 1,845 km of JR East being in or not, please clearly state your basis for reverting the other edits. Your opposition to inclusion of JR East does not qualify, by any means, as a basis for reverting the other changes. If you objected to JR East, the proper response would have been to revert the addition of JR East, not all my edits. Let's be a little more prudent next time. 江戸っ子 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Since it is almost impossible to make a detailed objection to a mass inclusion of about 4000 kilometers of railway lines, it is the burden of the one who wants to make a inclusion to show that an entry meets the inclusion critera. Yes, you need to show that the systems you want to add are urban, electric, primarily used for transport within a city, totally independent from other traffic, and with high frequency service. As example, many (most?) of the systems you have added are not totally independent from other traffic, since they have many grade crossings and share tracks with freight or regional/long-distance trains. --Kildor (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kildor, if you read the archives you do not see any argument and "inspection process" as 江戸っ子 puts it for the other "metro systems" that simply do not even match the criteria for a metro (or fail more than JR) such as BART, Catania Metro, Genoa Metro (which clearly says its only function is suburban), Washington Metro etc. The JR system matches everysingle criteria for metro except one which you mentioned, grade crossings...but as mentioned before the point of that criteria is for systems that have trains that wait for traffic therefore showing that they are not very high capacity and rapid...while essentially everysingle JR grade crossing, JR has the right of way. Tokyo is extremely built up, from underground to above ground so it's basically impossible to make everysingle rail line elevated or underground...the important aspects of the system are: Frequency (JR has higher frequency than most metros in the list), electric, urban service (therefore it is not suburban or commuter), high capacity (again JR has higher capacity trains than most systems on the list).
Let's go over the criteria for rapid transit again
  1. an urban, electric passenger transport system - JR meets this criteria
  2. with high capacity and high frequency of service - JR meets this criteria
  3. which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrian - Some JR lines do not meet this criteria
  4. And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems are primarily used for transport within a city - JR meets this criteria
  5. and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service - JR meets this criteria
Now if we look at BART, it fails #2,4,5. Catania Metro fails 2,5. Genoa Metro fails 2,4,5, Washington Metro fails the same as BART. If JR should not be included because it fails one of the criteria, than many other metro systems should not be included because it fails not one..but several. SkyTree90 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's tackle this presumption (again):

Yes, you need to show that the systems you want to add are urban, electric, primarily used for transport within a city, totally independent from other traffic, and with high frequency service. As example, many (most?) of the systems you have added are not totally independent from other traffic, since they have many grade crossings and share tracks with freight or regional/long-distance trains.

And you are sure that every single system in the list meets these criteria? You cannot avoid claims of a lack of objectivity when the current systems in the list do not necessarily meet all the criteria. However, you and other editors seem to have accepted these as deserving entries in the table. Why is it so hard this time around? Why must we have to “prove” our edits to you? Why is it always you objecting to edits?

I am also uncertain why the insistence on “grade crossings” here… Yes, several of these systems have grade crossings, but your persistence on this particular issue does not reflect reality. Was the New York City Subway not a “rapid transit” system until it removed all of its grade crossings (something that didn’t happen until 1965)? Should we then change its opening date to 1965? This same argument can be used to discredit your other criteria, like “electric” and track-sharing with freight (the Metropolitan Railway, which opened in 1863 and is frequently cited here and elsewhere as the start of the London Underground, was originally operated with steam locomotives and also serviced freight). In fact, there's still track-sharing with longer-distance trains on the London Underground. Again, you cannot avoid claims of a lack of objectivity when the current systems in the list do not necessarily meet all the criteria. For more modern examples of systems that are accepted as “metros” but fail some of your other criteria, see SkyTree90’s post above.

The only point to be gleaned from this exercise is that criteria need to be applied liberally. You can be rational and simply accept that there are lots of blurred areas already in the list (an inclusionist approach), or you can be obstinate and continue to insist that there is some manufactured universality that sanctifies all the systems currently in the table, using that as a basis to exclude other systems that you refuse to acknowledge (an exclusionist approach).

I really didn’t want to have to do this, but since some editors still insist on checking every addition to this table, here we go… I want to accelerate this process as much as possible, so I'll start off with the easy ones. No one should have any logical objection to inclusion of the following lines:

Just give us all your "stamp of approval" for these lines, and we can move on to the bigger fish. 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for inclusion of JR and private railways

OK, now that those are out of the way, it‘s time to move on to the rest of my additions, which are comprised of JR lines and private railway operations. To summarize, my basis for inclusion of these systems is as follows:

[edit] Satisfaction of the majority of the criteria

This has been discussed at length thus far, and there is no need to rehash these points. To summarize, insistence on the presence of grade crossings as a basis to disqualify my additions ignores the following facts:

  1. Several systems currently in the table have had grade crossings historically, and they are still referred to as “rapid transit” during that period. They did not suddenly become “rapid transit” with the removal of their last grade crossings.
  2. Not all the systems in the table currently meet all of the criteria.

I will also add that there is nothing that says one criteria is “more important” or “more critical” than another… A JR line that has grade crossings but otherwise meets the other criteria should not be rejected on the basis of grade crossings when other systems without grade crossings currently in the table fail to meet some of the other criteria. Ergo, the criteria should be applied in a liberal fashion, and a system that can be shown to meet at least most of the criteria deserves a place in the list.

[edit] Misinterpretation of the Japanese term for “rapid transit”

This is a new point which I wish to bring up, a problem relating specifically to Japan’s entries in this case. The current list of entries for Japan in this table is, aside from the recent addition of the Yamanote Line by TheRationalDude and the other systems by myself, a facsimile of the systems listed in ja:日本の地下鉄—lit. “underground railways” or “subways”, or in other words, lines which run primarily underground in a metropolitan area. As I showed in the above post, however, there are multiple additional lines which would fit all of the criteria frequently being cited here to define “rapid transit”, but which were not in the table, primarily because outsiders (i.e., non-Japanese) do not understand the scope of the word 地下鉄.

The Japanese do not refer to these other lines as 地下鉄, which is primarily a non-technical term... Instead, they use the term 都市高速鉄道 (lit. “urban rapid railway”), which is a better fit for the term “rapid transit”. You can go straight to ja: 都市高速鉄道 to verify this yourself:

ここでの「高速鉄道」とは、従来から都市内交通において基幹的な役割を持っていた路面電車を比較対象とした呼称であり、新幹線等の200km/h以上で走行する鉄道を意味しない。すなわち、街路の交差点における交通信号によって停止せざるを得ない「路面電車」に対して、信号で停止する必要がないように設計された鉄道を英語圏ではrapid transitと名付けており、日本ではこれを「都市高速鉄道」と命名したのである。

Translation:

”高速鉄道” (lit. “rapid railway”) as described here is a terminology used in juxtaposition to the trams (streetcars) that had traditionally served as the core providers of transport within cities, and is not used in reference to Shinkansen or other railways running at 200 km/h or faster. In other words, while trams (streetcars) must stop at traffic signals at road intersections, the term “rapid transit” is used in the English-speaking world to refer to railways that are designed without the need to stop at signals, and this term was translated into Japanese as “都市高速鉄道”.

都市高速鉄道 is a technical term—unlike 地下鉄 (“subway”)—and is used in official documents, such as network planning documents, environmental assessments, etc. The Japanese consider both JR and private railways serving metropolitan areas (e.g., Tokyu Corporation, Hankyu Corporation) as 都市高速鉄道. So, if you wish to list systems from Japan in this page, the better place to start would be 都市高速鉄道, not 地下鉄.

[edit] Citing sources that refer to these systems as “commuter rail” = flawed argument

There are several points here:

  • Misinterpretation of the term “commuter rail”. There is no term “commuter rail” in Japanese. Taking Tokyo as an example, the primary distinctions made in metropolitan railway networks are between 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. It may be convenient for outsiders (non-Japanese) to lump the private railways and JR as “commuter rail” because they operate outside the immediate core considered the “domain” of the subway, but that is an artificial construct and has no bearing on whether or not these “commuter rail” systems are “rapid transit”. The service standards bear this out, with JR and the private railways having similar (in some cases, better) frequencies, capacity, and peak loads. I don’t even need to bring up the Yamanote Line, as there plenty of other examples, including the Tōbu Isesaki Line (44 trains per hour during the peak, with a 20.2 km section of quadruple track) or the Keihan Main Line (38 trains per hour during the peak, with a 12.5 km section of quadruple track). For a better idea of the ridership levels we are talking about, here are some examples from the Tokyo area for FY2010 (source):
You would be very hard pressed to find many “subway” systems outside of Japan currently in the list that match these ridership levels… Only a handful can. In fact, these are greater than ridership on any of the Toei Subway lines and equivalent to the ridership on the busiest Tokyo Metro lines.
If you think I’m cherry-picking the highest ridership ones, here are some of the secondary lines, which also have very good ridership:
Most “commuter rail” systems don’t even approach anywhere near this level of ridership.
  • The categories “commuter rail” and “rapid transit” / “metro” are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are many sources, including the Commuter rail page, that admit the distinction between the two can be exceptionally blurred. Ergo, a system described as “commuter rail” does not necessarily mean it also does not qualify as a “metro”, nor does a listing of a system in List of commuter rail systems disqualify it from being listed in List of metro systems. An attempt at faithfully representing reality would place a “hybrid” system in both lists, not one or the other.

[edit] Negligible technical distinction between subways and these systems

There is often no recognizable difference between 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. Again, I take Tokyo as example, but the rolling stock between all three is virtually identical. The preferred Japanese term is ja:通勤形電車 or 通勤型車両 (“commuter train” or “commuter rolling stock”), which just means a train designed to serve high passenger (“commuter”) loads. The typical standard is 18 m or 20 m cars, with 3-4 doors per side per car, all-longitudinal seating (in a few cases mixed longitudinal and transverse). This de facto standard applies across 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. You can read more about this standardization process in Initiative to Standardize Tokyo Commuter EMUs.

The only substantial difference between the JR / private railway “commuter rail” and the subways is the presence of grade crossings, but even this does not hold for all cases, as there are many examples of JR / private railway “commuter rail” lines that are 100% grade-separated (e.g., Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line, JR Keiyō Line, JR Tōzai Line, etc.). Because of the building density (even in “suburban” areas) and sheer size of the network, grade-separation is an ongoing process in Japan—surprise, surprise, just like it was with all these other systems which are now fully grade-separated like London Underground or New York City Subway and which we still accepted as “rapid transit” during periods when they still had grade crossings in operation. Or shall we wait until every last grade crossing is removed before we feel comfortable calling JR and private railway “commuter rail” systems “rapid transit”?

[edit] Integration with subways via through-servicing

There are extensive through-services (i.e., trackage rights agreements or “interlining”) between the subways and JR / private railway commuter rail. This goes hand in hand with the standardization of rolling stock mentioned in the above point, but the crux of this point is that you can no longer reduce Japan’s entries to only subway = “rapid transit”. The Japanese have taken this concept and run away with it, much further than any other country, and there are numerous examples where the “commuter rail” end is basically just an extension of the subway line. You can get on the subway in the central core of the city and actually be riding a “commuter rail” train that will take you directly onto the “commuter rail” line without the need to transfer. For examples, see the Kintetsu Keihanna Line (extension of the Osaka Municipal Subway Chuo Line) or the Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line (extension of the Tokyo Metro Hanzōmon Line), all of which are both effective extensions of the corresponding subway line.

But it also goes the other way, and “subway” lines can be built as extensions of “commuter rail” lines (see Nagoya Municipal Subway Kami-iida Line, an extension of the Meitetsu Komaki Line). Taking this even further, we can look at Kobe Rapid Railway, which no one made a peep about for being in the table all this time… This subway doesn’t even have its own trains—it was built exclusively to allow “commuter rail” trains from Hankyu Railway, Hanshin Electric Railway, Sanyo Electric Railway, and Kōbe Electric Railway to run straight into central Kobe. Every train you take inside this subway is a “commuter rail” train, and there are no trains that just shuttle back and forth between the seven stations on this line—every train goes through to at least one “commuter rail” end, and in fact, some go through on both ends… You can get on a Sanyo Electric Railway train in Himeji in far western Hyōgo Prefecture that will take you through the Kobe Rapid Railway and continue out the other end onto the Hanshin Electric Railway straight to Umeda Station in Ōsaka, a journey of 91.8 km. And if you think this is just a schedule abnormality, the midday schedule has these 直通特急 (lit. “through-service limited express”) departing every 15 minutes from Sanyo Himeji Station, supplemented by two locals an hour through-servicing into Hankyu’s Sannomiya Station in central Kobe and several other services. Other examples include the Tokyo Metro Hanzōmon Line through-services with the Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line and Tōbu Isesaki Line, which stretch over as far as 98.5 km, with 6 tph doing this in each direction during the midday, again supplemented by a slew of other services.

To put this into perspective, the combined length quoted for Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway in this table is a mere 304.1. But when you add in the through-servicing of these subway lines, the effective length of the subway network is actually 878 km as of FY2010 (source). And this number will only grow with the initiation of through-service between the Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line and the Tōkyū Tōyoko Line and Yokohama Minatomirai Railway Minatomirai Line sometime this year, and the Sagami Railway (Sotetsu) in five years.

So do you define “rapid transit” as the infrastructure (tracks) or the actual trains? It’s pretty easy to make a distinction in places that do not employ through-servicing, but much, much harder to make a distinction in places that do. Are the subway lines currently in the table not really subway lines because some (or all) of the trains are actually “commuter rail” trains? Should we now remove Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway because trains on many of these systems also operate on “commuter rail” segments, some of which may contain grade crossings? Or, perhaps the more logical conclusion is that trying to boil the dynamic down to “commuter rail” vs. “subway” is not a 100% accurate description of reality—a reality that says there is a high-degree of integration between “commuter rail” and “subways” in Japan such that they are no longer readily distinguishable from one another.

[edit] Conclusion

So that is my basis for the inclusion of JR and the private railway lines.

As a reminder, you need not agree with me that JR and the private railways are “rapid transit” systems in order to justify their inclusion… You only have to agree that they can be interpreted as such, in so far as there are already “hybrid” systems in the table. Hopefully I’ve made that choice pretty crystal clear at this point.

Please do not avoid these issues and respond with a one-liner like “you need more sources”…

  • There are enough sources to support my point of view throughout this Talk Page. You may not agree with them, but that is irrelevant. I’ve also poked holes in other editors’ sources (some of which are questionable material), so there is hardly a consensus, even in the industry, that JR and private railways are “commuter rail.”
  • If editors want to contest my additions, then let’s be thorough about it… A simple one-liner isn’t going to refute everything I’ve said here.
I believe you should re-add JR, especially after reading about "都市高速鉄道" which even links back to the Rapid Transit english page. Either that or we should go through every system on the page and remove all of the ones that fail just one (not to mention 3) of the criteria.. I don't think that's necessary since JR only fails one by the strict definition..the trains do not stop for traffic and have right of way so essentially having grade crossings is a non issue in such dense cities. SkyTree90 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So for the record. I, still, disagree with essentially every addition added to this page in the Japanese section. My main objection is not that these do not meet the "5 technical points" above, but that they are not commonly referred to or known as metro/Subway systems, in the way that the London Underground or the New York City Metro is. As far as I can see, despite the fact that these meet the points above, I can see no independent reliable sources calling each one a "metro" or a "subway". They are rather seen in terms of commuter/regional rail systems. Take a look for example at the main sources that we use to distinguish what is a metro or not. Metrobits lists Japan as having metros only in some main cities Chiba, Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kamakura, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Naha, Osaka, Sapporo, Sendai, Tama, Tokyo and Yokohama. It does not list many of the ones added or proposed to be added. The same for both Urban Rail and LRTA (note this lists monorails, metro, light rail, light metro and trams all in one place so the list appears bigger). Calling something a metro simply because it meets some arbitrary criteria that we set, but ignoring the fact that it is not called or referred to as a metro is WP:OR. That is the same reason why some system which fail some of these criteria are included; because they are considered and called metros by the major sources that we choose to use. It's obviously a grey area, but it is an important distinction that we need to make.
Secondly, I think that we need to group whatever systems from Japan that are decided to be added by city for the purposes of this list. My argument behind this is that the number of cities with metro systems is a way in which industrialized nations are compared; and by listing every single operator/line, especially when they operate in conjunction with (and one ticket works on multiple) is giving this list an unfair bias towards the Japanese systems.
Finally, I really don't have the time at the moment to engage in a detailed discussion on each line, so let this be my opinion. Ravendrop 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So essentially you're saying official japanese sources that use the japanese "rapid transit" 都市高速鉄道 term are not valid and only english websites count? Most of those websites are not official sources and are fan created...and they tend to use the term "metro" as if it refers only to systems underground. For example metrobits calls the yamanote line a "Suburban metro"...while not a single station is suburban, it is in fact the most urban "metro ring" in the world so the only reason they have even used the term "suburban" is because they do not understand how to translate japanese or they are simply saying that since it is above ground that somehow makes it "suburban". The only point I think you have a case for is the adding them by city, but I don't agree with you with this "bias towards" as if there is some kind of competition going on. The reason I assume he added them as "greater tokyo" etc is simply because all of these systems are intertwined and are in adjacent cities. I don't think it is necessary to explain here that the japanese metropolitan regions occupy smaller land areas than North America/European metropolitan areas and yet are several times denser...essentially making them gigantic cities with artificial "city boundaries". The title of the article is "list of metro systems" not "list of cities with metro systems", in other words if you want to do is strictly by city than you need to cut up the japanese systems several times, with many of the lines for example crossing into chiba and then one station later going back into tokyo simply due to the geography of the border of Chiba/Tokyo. It's not very practical and it unnecessarily breaks up the systems. Of course, most of the metro systems on the list also go into adjacent cities (that are not suburban) yet we shouldn't (and don't) break up those system either. Are you suggesting that the japanese systems numbers should be merged so it is listed as just one "metro" per "city"? SkyTree90 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
For example the Saitama government (official source) clearly lists: JR, Tsukuba Express, Saitama railway (Continuation of Tokyo Metro), and Tobu as rapid transit (都市高速鉄道 [literally urban/city rapid rail]). http://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/440021.pdf The government also clearly says: 都市高速鉄道は...私鉄、地下鉄、ＪＲ等が該当します。 (Rapid Transit is... which is Private Railways, subways and JR). http://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/site/toshishisetsu/toshikousokutetsudou.html
Here is another list of "rapid transit" for Chiba, which again clearly has subways, private railways and JR: http://www.pref.chiba.lg.jp/tokei/toshikeikaku/documents/2-2-03_1.pdf
Here is one for Nagoya (Aichi) which is titled "Rapid Transit" and it again has subways, JR and Private Railway http://www.pref.aichi.jp/cmsfiles/contents/0000037/37984/kousokutetsudou.pdf
We have demonstrated they meet all the criteria, more so than many of the systems on the page. The UITP has JR as a representative, and the most authoritative sources of them all list them as rapid transit along with the subways. Just because some english fan pages are mistranslating them or are giving arbitrary terms like "metro like" does not change anything that we have demonstrated. Also notice how Saitama and Chiba (as well as Tokyo) claim the same systems as "their" rapid transit...so it shows the difficulty in doing it strictly by city. Again this page is list of metro systems, so there is no reason to do it by city or we will make it redundant. SkyTree90 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, I appreciate you taking the time to respond…
I will just add a few of my points here alongside those from SkyTree90:
Metrobits lists Japan as having metros only in some main cities Chiba, Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kamakura, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Naha, Osaka, Sapporo, Sendai, Tama, Tokyo and Yokohama.
MetroBits is not an authoritative source… It’s one guy, a railfan, who obviously took a lot of time to build a website… I will post this link again to show you that the numbers they’ve calculated are questionable. There’s another guy that helps him do all the “counting” of km, and they obviously get a lot of things confused. Kudos to them for taking all that time to put that together, but how does that avoid original research?
Also, for the cities he cites for Japan:
  • Chiba: A monorail system (Chiba Monorail), and a very, very small one at that. Not high-capacity by any means, and certainly much less deserving of being on the list than any of the other monorails I had to add myself to List of metro systems.
  • Hiroshima: This is Hiroshima Rapid Transit, and only on the Wiki page because of my edits. It wasn’t in before.
  • Kamakura: Shonan Monorail, another really small monorail system, everything applies same as the Chiba one.
  • Kita-Kyushu: Kitakyūshū Monorail. Same as Hiroshima, this wasn’t even on the Wiki page until I added it in.
  • Naha: Yui Rail. Similar to Chiba and Kamakura, a small monorail system.
  • Tama: Tama Urban Monorail. Same as Hiroshima and Kita-Kyushu.
As you can see above, MetroBits actually has quite a few monorails listed, but they’re missing Osaka Monorail, Tokyo Monorail, et al. in that tally… For example, the station and km count is only Tokyo Metro plus Toei Subway, but if you go to the Tokyo page, they’re also talking about (surprise, surprise) the Tokyo Monorail, the Yurikamome, the Yamanote Line, etc., so it’s not consistent by any means. Please, I’ve poked way too many holes through MetroBits already… Let’s avoid it from now on—it’s not an authoritative source on this topic.
Urban Rail is another fan page (please see my responses under the “my compromise” section above). LRTA is better, as it’s a more authoritative source, but you’ll notice that it lists the monorail systems as “monorail” and not “metro”, which actually contradicts everyone’s favorite “Holy Grail” source, MetroBits. It also states at the very first page: Classification always brings areas of doubt, particularly in countries such as Japan and Switzerland where clear dividing lines just do not exist.
The point is, there is inconsistency and uncertainty in how things are defined, even with authoritative sources like LRTA, UITP, et al. Thus, in so much as we can find authoritative sources which refer to these Japanese systems as “rapid transit” (which both I and SkyTree 90 have done), regardless of whether there are other authoritative sources which instead refer to these systems as “commuter rail”, then these systems deserve mention in List of metro systems. Remember, a lot of people don’t call the S-bahn systems “metros” either, yet we have them in this list. Shall we remove them now?
Regarding the “city” thing, that’s a minor point… City limits are irrelevant. What matters is metropolitan area, as these are “metros” (i.e., “metropolitan” railways). Greater Tokyo et al. are metropolitan areas. For some of these, you cannot break them down into cities because they run through multiple cities… You must look at things at the metropolitan level. Besides, the column at the top of the table says “Location”, not implying “city” or “metropolitan area”.
Regarding potential bias, I must strongly object to that notion… I might agree with you if most other systems were as balkanized as Japan’s are, but they aren’t. Japan has a very strong private railway tradition, and it has historically been very forward-thinking with regards to public-private partnerships (third-sector railways), each of which is treated as its own company, so there are a lot of distinct operators. Surely you don’t suggest we report a single number with everything rolled up? Contrast that with anywhere else in the world (New York, Paris, Hong Kong, Moscow, etc.), which only have a handful of railway operators (if they even have more than one). Only London really comes close, but even then, all the TOCs are strictly operators, they don’t actually own any of the infrastructure (that’s all one company, Network Rail).
It might seem like I am “flooding” the table with entries out of some bias, but SkyTree90 and I are actually just correcting oversight that has persisted for quite some time because no one ever took the time to challenge this issue with respect to Japan. There is nothing you or I can really do about all these companies… SkyTree90 is right, this is a “List of metro systems”, not a “List of cities with metro systems”. This is not a contest about which country has the most cities with metros, or which cities have the largest metros… It is an attempt to correct mistakes in the article. In fact, I actually hope all these efforts encourage other editors to be more proactive, so we can get other systems like the RER listed as they rightfully should have been a while ago. 江戸っ子 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Ravensdrop. To call them metros when not one reliable source is offered that does such, while an (entirely) TLDR argument that includes the phrase "we have demonstrated" (which is widely used in papers published in academic journals, setting off alarms for me) seems to be the exact situation that WP:NOR is intended to avoid: publishing original thought. We don't draw conclusions, we report on conclusions that others have already drawn. Unless a source can be shown calling these lines metros/subways as commonly understood (not "rapid transit", a term so broad as to be meaningless; note tht the supposed sources above further break down the term to separate subways and JR, acknowledging that they are different modes), they must remain out of the list. oknazevad (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that Subways, JR and private railways are separated? That would make sense if we included all the japanese systems into a single metro system, but we are not they are listed separately (just like NYC has PATH, Staten Island Railway and NYC Subway; Or london into London Underground and Docklands Light Railway). Obviously Japan will have the most systems, it is the country with the highest rail usage as the primary mode of transport on earth, it is to be expected. Also none of it is original research, the japanese official sources themself label them as rapid transit..which is what a metro is. There are also several japanese rail websites that also label them as rapid transit. In fact the sources ravendrop and kildor are presenting ARE original research and are mistranslating terms, using odd terms like "metro like" or calling the Yamanote line "suburban metro" (despite, as said above not a single station is suburban and it is more urban than every loop line in the world). Please read the definition of "rapid transit". Indeed if you even search "metro" on wikipedia it directs you to the "rapid transit" page. So either we on wikipedia completely separate the terms rapid transit and metro..or we add rapid transit systems. This is basically turning into a case of "These fan-made non authoritative websites have mistranslated japanese terms, or made up terms like "metro like" therefore the original japanese sources or people fluent in Japanese are simply wrong", this is going to cause everysingle reader of japanese system to label them all as "suburban/commuter" (except subways) simply due to mistranslation since they are getting their sources from fan rail websites...and wikipedia (despite the japanese version of wikipedia clearly explaining rapid transit and even linking to the english rapid transit page).
In fact the Docklands light railway in metrobits is labelled as "other rail"; and on lrta it is labelled as light rail..and the only source for it is urbanrail.net which says it is rapid transit. If the term rapid transit is good enough for Docklands, why is it not good enough for the japanese systems? Is it only because rail-fan websites or the japanese language (government and japanese rail-fan websites) so therefore the odd terms like "suburban metro" and "metro-like" (without sourcing anywhere where they got those terms) will stand forever even though they are factually incorrect? The same thing applies to the S-bahn. To list some of the most heavily used, highest frequency systems in the world as "suburban" despite some of them not even having a single suburban station and the japanese language sources themself saying they are not suburban is IMO against what wikipedia stands for in the first place..which is presenting the most accurate data from the most direct and accurate sources. The sources I gave above are secondary sources, which is what the Original Research wikipedia page states is preferable, the original source is the urban planning law Article 11 paragraph 1 which differentiates between rail transit types and defines rapid transit (the same definition as the english rapid transit). SkyTree90 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to object to your claim that “not one reliable source” refers to them as “rapid transit”. Both SkyTree90 and I have provided you with authoritative sources that use the Japanese term for “rapid transit”. If you choose to ignore them, that is your choice, but you cannot claim that we have not presented any reliable sources. SkyTree90 just posted a slew of them a few posts up. And whether you like it or not, the title of the Wikipedia page is Rapid transit, not Metro.
Likewise, I have to question whether you really have many authoritative sources to support your own position… Let me summarize the sources presented thus far that other editors used to support your position:
  • UITP: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. As we showed above, their definition specifically mentions about “grade separation”, but they have JR East as one of Japan’s two representatives on the main committee. Bit odd, don’t you think?
  • MetroBits: Non-authoritative, unreliable (see above).
  • UrbanRail: Non-authoritative (see above). He also admits that the Yamanote Line is “metro-like”, so he clearly recognizes the lines are blurred.
  • Vuchic: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. Remember, it excludes the S-Bahn systems, yet you’ve all agreed they deserve to be in the table.
  • LRTA: Authoritative, but it does not mention JR or the private railways anywhere in the list. It also states at the very first page: Classification always brings areas of doubt, particularly in countries such as Japan and Switzerland where clear dividing lines just do not exist.
So in reality, two of the sources (MetroBits are UrbanRail) are non-authoritative and / or unreliable. Of the authoritative sources, they can’t really be taken to support only inclusion or only exclusion of these systems, as they can be interpreted either way. Where are all the sources supporting your position? Please post anything else, if you have them, but it appears at this moment that you don’t actually have any authoritative sources to support your position.
Also the claim about original research really has no substance as long as editors in your position continue to cite MetroBits and UrbanRail, which are original research masking themselves as third-party sources. 江戸っ子 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone point me to a source which claims these Japanese railway lines to be metro systems (or with a similar term), which also includes a definition similar to the definitions of metro used in this article? I do not have time right now to respond to these lengthy posts here. But in a first glance at the list of "obvious" systems to include, the first is Aonami Line which, according to the article, is a shared passenger/freight railway. AGT:s and Monorails are clearly excluded from this list (these have separate lists).
It is also clear that there is no consensus for adding the Japanese railway lines to the list, so I have once again removed them. --Kildor (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So first you ask us to prove to you that they match criteria... Now you ask us to show that people refer to them using specific English-centric terminology. Which is it? Remember, nobody is asking to remove Berlin S-Bahn and Hamburg S-Bahn now that someone has proved that they generally match the criteria. This also relates to oknazevad's post about "original research"... SkyTree90 and I have simply responded to kildor's requests that we provide evidence that they match the criteria, just like other editors did to get these two S-Bahn systems in. This, despite the fact that these two systems are rarely referred to as "metro" or "rapid transit" in English-language sources. If other editors continue to latch onto these criteria, then yes, "we" must continue to "demonstrate" that they meet them. You cannot have it both ways, guys... You need to be consistent. You also cannot expect every system to have something written about it in English, much less something that is factually correct. Regarding use of the term "rapid transit" / "metro" in Japanese... As I have explained, and as is stated in the Japanese Wiki article for ja:都市高速鉄道, the best equivalent is 都市高速鉄道 "urban rapid railway". If you still doubt me, feel free to look up "Tsukuba Express" and "rapid transit" on Google. I only choose this because this has the most English-language material discussing it... As I said before, this is a fully grade-separated rapid transit line. You cannot remove it from this list. Shall we also remove Docklands Light Railway, referred to as a "light rail" by LRTA? Please, do not cherry pick your sources.
Anyways, regarding your removal of the monorail and AGT lines, that is also without basis. These are simply technological choice, not related to how it functions as, or meets the oft-cited criteria for, "rapid transit". You cited the fact that there is a "separate list" for these systems, but you failed to realize that these lists are not mutually exclusive. If you object to the inclusion of such lines, then you must remove Chongqing Metro (monorail) and Taipei Metro, Toulouse Metro, and Rennes Metro (AGT). Likewise, I'll remind you now that you can no longer continue to cite MetroBits as a source without appearing biased... Otherwise, you should have no objection to the inclusion of Tokyo Monorail or Yurikamome. Please provide us with sources that justify the exclusion of these systems from the list.
I really encourage you to read my posts. They are lengthy, but you will better understand the position that I hold. It will also save you time in the long run over these trivial debates over minutiae. 江戸っ子 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems&oldid=480009335"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export