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 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, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems.


Just wondering, why is Tren Urbano listed under Puerto Rico, which is a territory of the United States, while Hong Kong is listed under China, People's Republic of? Shouldn't it be consistent as Hong Kong, like Puerto Rico is a dependent territory? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fix it, but I won't go there. All I know is I have to show a passport when changing from the Shenzhen metro to the MTR at Futian, and I have to show passport AND visa when going the other way. So I take the Shekou ferry, then it feels like a cruise ....BsBsBs (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
NO! Kill Puerto Rico if you insist, but don't you dare put Hong Kong in here - the column heading clearly says "Country", and regardless of what the HKG-pushers say, "Country" is controlled by the List of sovereign states... --IJBall (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Cool it. It's common practice most everywhere else to identify Hong Kong as Hong Kong and not explicitly as China. I also can't help but notice how incivil and bossy your behavior is on the talk page and edit summaries. Please look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Civility. Citobun (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's not common practice to list Hong Kong as a separate country, despite what Hong Kong partisans on Wiki tend to say. Sure, some lists do - in some lists it even makes sense to list Hong Kong separately. In other lists, it doesn't, and so it isn't. Regardless, how country is "defined" on each page determines what "countries" can be listed - this list is quite clear what definition of country we are using, and it is not inclusive of Hong Kong and Puerto Rico.
BTW, I don't claim "ownership" of this, or any, article, and never have. But I will definitely enforce WP:Consensus decisions, of which what is defined as "country" on this page is one. And I'll admit that I get annoyed by people who edit articles like this one without fully reading it first - yeah, that's on me, but it's also on drive-by editors who don't fully read pages before they edit. --IJBall (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If you read reputable news magazines, the Economist for instance, you can tell that it is a common practice. Don't jump to your very own conclusion if you don't read. (As a matter of fact, even when you register for a GMail account or install a new OS onto your computer, you can actually find Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, among many other dependencies, under a dropdown list for countries. (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the specific definition of "country" that we use here (and on the List of tram and light rail transit systems) is clearly laid out in the 'Legend' of this page, and is the consensus definition. As long as the specific definition of "country" used in each Wiki article is clearly stated, there is no ambiguity. The vast majority of editors here feel there is no benefit gained by the inclusion of dependent territories in the list of "Countries". Not every page will choose to use the same definition of "country", but as long as each page clearly defines which definition they are using, there should be no issues. Once again, while there may be multiple definitions of "country", the one in the 'Legend' of this page is the one that we will use here, as it's by consensus. --IJBall (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't use the word 'country' if you're insisting to refer only to a subset of countries. Consensus isn't a mechanism to define something black as white. Consensus isn't a way to pretend that you may refuse to understand the real-life meaning of any English word. (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to have a discussion with someone who is effectively denying that the word "country" has multiple definitions, one of which is clearly synonymous "sovereign nation" and "independent state" (as it is, even at Wiki's country article). As for "consensus", it's defined at WP:Consensus, and is not defined in such a way as to give one or two editors "veto" power over the consensus of the other editors. --IJBall (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That article doesn't seem to suggest that they're synonymous. And it appears that you're the one who's denying what's demonstrated by, e.g., The Economist, reports of the Heritage Foundation, THES, and so on and so forth, while producing nothing to justify your position (that the word 'countries' refers only to sovereign states). (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Go to that other page if you want to make a comment. Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are both sovereign states and dependencies both subsets of the English word 'country', in the same manner as leopards, jaguars, lions, cats, are subsets of felids? (Please discuss under Talk:List of countries without armed forces#RfC.) - 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this here if it has something to do with another page? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Because he's fishing to have Hong Kong declared a "country" in every major list he can get his hands on. --IJBall (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed. This (anonymous) disruptive editor is desperately trying to get Hong Kong declared independent through Wikipedia. Totally inappropriate. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes there's no way the question there could be used here. If affirmative the question there would answer if any military equivalent should be listed for Hong Kong. That wouldn't be a reason to cut the China from Hong Kong here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serialjoepsycho that's because there was also a discussion on the same matter on this talk page, and indeed under this section. (Meanwhile IJBall and Timothy please mind your accusations. You're already violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.) (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One had nothing to do with the other. Separate situations. They don't compare. Hong Kong is in China and that is what it says here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)[edit]
Puerto Rico and Guam are in the United States too, in that case, and the Isle of Man lies well within the United Kingdom. (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, legally speaking. But as there's no metro there, it's not important here, not is Guam. Frankly, I think the second flags works well for HK and PR. It sufficiently notes the somewhat separate nature of the territories without implying a non-existent independence. My only concern is that it will prompt the in list of other sub-national divisions. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the flag is redundant in the case of Hong Kong (not so in the case of Puerto Rico, which is a really weird special case in terms of this list...), but the current solution is not off-putting enough to warrant an objection, so I'm satisfied with the current situation as a workable compromise solution. --IJBall (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
IP the Isle of Mann isn't on this list is it? I'm not sure that Guam is either. And can someone tell me exactly where Hong Kong is in Hong Kong? Lol at least San Juan is in Puerto Rico.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There should be one same rule for different lists, at least for lists on similar or related topics. (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: We gotta have the same rule for different lists. Wikipedia isn't just about the list of metro systems. (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Dependencies are sometimes considered and sometimes not considered part of the sovereign powers, depending on the situation. For example, for ECHR purposes, the Isle of Man falls within the UK. For WTO purposes, Hong Kong isn't considered to be part of the trade and customs territory of China. Dependencies aren't subnational entities in the same sense. (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are expecting consistency on this issue, you're going to be disappointed. That's because "territories" occupy a "gray area" between nation-state and something like province or district. In same cases, it makes sense to list them separately (e.g. Hong Kong has a different tax system than the PRC, so it makes perfect sense in that situation to list it separately). In other cases, there is no advantage to listing territories separately from their nations. Basically, Wikipedia is governed by WP:Consensus, and every separate Wiki article may come to differing consensuses on issues such as these. That's just how it is... --IJBall (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
HK has their own rules and standards for their railways, and the connection of the rail systems of HK and China is nothing much different from those across international borders. In what way do you think it's different from the tax system, e.g.? (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello? (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: What about removing the flags under the metropolitan column, and state that it's " Puerto Rico (US)" under the country column? That's the current practice for many lists by country on Wikipedia. (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Meh. Six of one, half a dozen of another. As IJ notes, there's no perfect solution, and the current one is fine. oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That depends on whether readers would look for, e.g., San Juan or Puerto Rico, under #P or #U. What do you think? (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The only problem here is that Hong Kong is not a dependency of China. It is a City of China. It's autonomous that is all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No where is it defined as a 'city' in the law books. Its only status, for the time being, is special administrative region. Conventionally it's considered a dependency, and, like most inhabited dependencies do, appear with its own entry under lists of countries. (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)[edit]

Let's see how the UIC deal with HK on their website:

  • 'The conference was attended by researchers and practitioners from 24 countries, with delegates from 18 European countries and further afield from Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea and the United States.' [1] [2]
  • 'Due to the rapid economic growth of developing countries such as Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Malaysia, and the introduction of market economy in China, Asia has been in the spotlight.' [3]
  • 'Many experts and professors from various countries were invited this course as lecturers, such as T. C. Kao, Professor of Taiwan National university, Kiyohiro TAKEMOTO, Manager of JR East, Leo Mak, General Director of BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION as well as Korean experts, so they delivered high standard of lectures about urban railway operation in Taiwan, Japan, Hong-Kong [sic] and Korea vividly.' [4]
  • 'Speakers were from Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Holland, Korea, USA, the European Railway Agency, South Africa, Ireland, Hong Kong, France and Canada.' [5]
  • (See the dropdown menu titled 'Business Country:') [6]
  • (See the content page under Page 2) [7] (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You just won't "get it", will you? Fine, I'm going to leave it to somebody else to try and explain it to you (for the zillionth time). Suffice it to say, you are not going to win this fight, now matter how much text you throw at Talk pages... --IJBall (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:CIVIL. Thanks. (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Civility? How about a little competence? Your RFC was unrelated to the other RFC you attached it to. All of your justifications here amount solely to original research. POV pushing gets old quick. Get to the point and use reliable rsources.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Tell us more about how One China, Two Systems the constitutional provision makes Hong Kong an dependency instead of an autonomous area.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an autonomous dependency, like most inhabited dependencies in the 21st century are.

It's related to other RfCs because it's about the international character and personality of dependencies in general. There's no original research. Those are nothing more than examples to illustrate how other sources deal with dependencies. (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Your sources above aren't actually reliable. What you fail to take into account is that Hong Kong, China has the right to maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields. This is a part of it's autonomy. It has limited rights in relation to Foreign affairs. Limited being the key word. Also Hong Kong is a city. It's still a special adminastrative region but it's also a city. A city and SAR of China. The country of China.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Present your reliable sources to argue for your viewpoint then, if there's any. (Meanwhile, please be informed that Hong Kong hasn't got any city status within the administrative division framework of the People's Republic.) (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Do either the Hong Kong or PRC governments consider Hong Kong to be a country? Liamdavies (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is how 'Hong Kong' appears in lists or tables published by the Hong Kong Government: [8] (under 'Participating Economies'), [9] (see lower half of Page 3, and note that Jersey, Guernsey and Bermuda also appear in the same table).

And here're two examples of how Hong Kong appears in tables or in text published by the People's Republic's ministry of commerce: [10] (table 1.2 and paragraph 1.2), [11]. (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I can see it lists itself as an economy (not knowing Chinese I can't trust Google Translate's literal translations). Is there a document somewhere where the Hong Kong government claims to be a country? Liamdavies (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to the .Pdf file linked above. (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Or perhaps this one too if you're interested: [12]. (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Quote from "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Following British rule from 1842 to 1997, China assumed sovereignty under the 'one country, two systems' principle." The "one country" here obviously refers to China, not Hong Kong. In other words, the HK government does not consider Hong Kong a country. -Zanhe (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (cross-posted on Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems)
Thanks Zahne. if we're going to even consider this we really need something from the government where they claim to a country (not headings on a table but actual prose, ie a sentence that contains the terms "Hong Kong" and "country" preferably with "is a" between them), if not even the government of Hong Kong consider Hong Kong to be a country I don't see why wiki should. Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Both the Hong Kong and the Chinese governments consistently present Hong Kong alongside other countries, not alongside Chinese provinces and cities, for whatever international comparison or listing purposes, as you can tell from the links above, e.g., the HKMA one which also includes Bermuda, Jersey and Guernsey.

And here's how Hong Kong deals with other countries: [13], [14]. (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe I'm afraid you're cherrypicking, not presenting the full picture, and taking words out of contexts. In the 'One country, two systems' saying, the word 'country' is actually a direct (mis)translation of the Chinese vocabulary guójiā. Chinese languages lack the separate concepts of 'sovereign state' and country, and the term guójiā means 'sovereign state(s)'. (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Please review WP:TEDIOUS, especially Section 2.9 - you aren't convincing anyone here, and you need to give it a rest. You've been at this for two months, and have only succeeded in alienating everyone away from your viewpoint. Please move on. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Tendentious anon user from dynamic IPs of Sounds like familiar behaviour of our old friend User:Instantnood. I've opened a new SPI investigation. Feel free to add your comments there. -Zanhe (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, interesting - so I've been snookered all along?... I'd never heard of Instantnood before this (interesting that Oknazevad, who's seemed to have run ins with this Instantnood before didn't catch it earlier!...). In any case, I don't think I can contribute anything to a SPI investigation, though I'd certainly be willing to testify and attest to this IP user's disruptiveness in general. --IJBall (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's embarrassing that I didn't, actually. Heck, I've got the relevant SPI page on my watchlist! It does fit the pattern completely, though. (As an aside, IJ, when adding additional evidence, you should put it as a separate comment, not in Zanhe's post. Not only because it strengthens the case to show that the IP has a negative impact on multiple pages and editors, but also because it isn't something Zanhe added and therefore should have his signature attached.) oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks - that's good to know, though I'm hoping on not using this particular type of Admin-intervention again. But I'll go take a look at the SPI page again, and fix any of my mistakes on this front... --IJBall (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Mind telling why you'd consider the UIC sources not to be reliable? (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello? (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it doesn't reliable represent the facts about Hong Kong. Hong Kong article 151 rights are in play here. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is something you should familiarize yourself with IP POV pusher. Basic Law is guaranteed until 2047. The Basic Law isn't represented in the language of the UIC. However it is clear for this to be legal and binding Hong Kong joined this effort as Hong Kong, China. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Your claim that Hong Hong in and of itself is a Country is not represented by the UIC source as UIC source is a wp:redflag. Come back with a reliable source or time this conversation is time to end.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Joe, for your own edification, you may want to take a look at this, especially this most relevant part... --IJBall (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I was aware that he was a SPA. However it also seems he's been at this beofre. That amkes it seem likely he'll be at it again. Even a tendentious editor deserves an answer of why their source is unreliable. It's a resonable question. But indeed thank you for making me aware they were finally blocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually Joe, and I know this is a follow up to an old post, he deserves nothing. See WP:BAN and WP:DENY. oknazevad (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

East Rail[edit]


Is the East Rail of the MTR a metro line? It was opened in 1910 as the Kowloon-Canton Railway British Section. Is it comparable to Line 1 of Seoul, the Yamanote Line in Tokyo metropolitan, Copenhagen's S-tog, or Naples' Line 2? (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a metro line. According to MTR's official website, it is considered part of the MTR's heavy rail system. Why do you ask?
By the way, Seoul Metro Line 1 and Tokyo Yamanote Line are metro lines (the boundaries are really unclear on these two) while the Copanhagen S-tog and Naple's Line 2 are both commuter rail. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concern as the East Rail shares tracks with intercity trains but it fits the other criteria and most sources list it as a metro, (as part of the MTR heavy rail system) so it should remain unchanged. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We now have definite references saying metros must have dedicated (i.e. unshared) tracks. If this line doesn't, then it should be out, regardless of whatever "branding" the operating company gives it. --IJBall (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So, you're saying that under this definition, ten out of 13 lines of the Tokyo Subway shouldn't be considered metro lines? (The only lines in Tokyo that meet this criteria are the Ōedo, Marunouchi, and Ginza Lines.) Also, the Seoul Subway's Lines 1, 3, 4, and the named lines are also not metro lines by this definition. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Besides, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation is long defunct (by over 6 years) and the East Rail Line is currently running on tracks exclusive to the line. At Lo Wu Station, a cross-platform interchange must be made to connect to mainland trains, just like at Ronkonkoma station of the LIRR. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't make the rules, but we should follow them. BsBsBs was right about one thing: we can't just include any old systems or lines we like here, if they don't meet all of the criteria. Now I don't know as much about some of these systems as other editors do, and it's possible that only portions of some of the lines you mention would be out rather than the whole linelength - regardless, we can always figure out the details on the Talk page. (And, yes - with Seoul, this was what the whole fight has been about...) I'll point out that we can 'Note' systems however we like, to explain and define some of these situations. But if a line (or a portion of a line) shares tracks with other rail systems, or with freight, the references tell us that they don't meet the "metro" definition. On Wiki, we have to follow the references. --IJBall (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but... There are exceptions to every rule, and we shouldn't treat the criteria as all-or-nothing too strictly. As we've long established in the years of prior discussion. Lest we do stuff like kick out most of Tokyo, or parts of London or Chicago. To do such would make us look pedantic and out of alighnment with the wider world. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Doing so sets bad precedents, does come dangerously close to (if not over the line of) WP:OR, and invites contentious editing ("why is an exception made for that system, and not my system?!...", which of course is exactly what keeps happening with Seoul and Munich and the like...), which was BsBsBs' point all along. If we're going to insist upon "picking and choosing this way" (which I'll go on the record as being against doing, outside of not enforcing the "no at-grade crossings" rule too strictly...) then all of these "exceptional" or "borderline" systems are going to have to heavily 'Noted', so it's clear exactly what was done, and why it was done. And I'm not sure that's the case currently... For example, BIL's "commuter rail-like" 'Note' should probably be restored, IMO... And a Talk page review of these "exceptional" or "borderline" systems would probably be worthwhile, so we all know exactly what the issues are - if East Rail hasn't shared tracks for 6 years, that's fine, but I think we all need to see some proof of that (along with an understanding that some of the systems-specific pages are going to need to be updated too, to reflect more recent developments...). --IJBall (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned with violating OR by leaving off systems that are universally included on lists such as this based on our reading of criteria. I guess I'm saying i lean towards including if in doubt. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I think we need to see those references (we can cite the system names themselves with them), because we really do need to see if secondary references (e.g. not refs from Tokyo's operator itself, for example) are in fact counting all of these other (shared rail) lines as "metro" lines. Because it would be odd if UITP and the U.S. FTA are so clear in defining "metros" one way, and other reputable sources are ignoring those definitions in the case of certain systems (or, at least in the case of certain lines, within a few specific systems). --IJBall (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Epicgenius the KCR Corporation still exists to hold the assets that it used to operate. It's leased the right to operate its railway assets to the MTRCL in 2007 through a 50-year concession. Meanwhile, it's necessary to note that there're still about a dozen departures of 'through-trains' everyday from East Rail's southern terminus in Kowloon to Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou or Zhaoqing. And they only terminated their freight trains five or six years ago. (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
And btw there is no cross-platform interchange in Lo Wu for Chinese trains. It's a ten- or fifteen-minute walk across a bridge over a river, which is also the border, plus waiting time on both sides of the river for the immigration counters and customs inspections. (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Okay, so that's even better. It never shares tracks with commuter rails, not even at Lo Wu. Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The commuter system became more like a metro especially since the trains were refurbished in the late 1990s. Trains for Guangzhou, Zhaoxing, Shanghai and Beijing run from Kowloon, i.e., these trains share the same pair of tracks with trains that run within Hong Kong borders. (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In this situation, then, I'd say it's like the Seoul Subway. Epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
But the train services within Hong Kong is now like metro, in terms of design of the compartments, schedule/frequency, the use faring gates, and so on and so forth. Long-distance trains constitutes only a tiny proportion of the traffic on its pair of tracks, and freight trains no longer run on its tracks. (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Then it would be classified as "metro-like", but I do not think that we have a list for that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you put that label on Tokyo's Yamanote Line too? (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Any other example?
(And what about the West Rail, which was designed and built with a concept similar to the East Rail in mind, with some long-distance and freight trains running on its track.. but isn't (or hasn't yet been) connected to any conventional railway?) (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I would also put the London Underground as falling under this criterion. (The District, Central, Jubilee, Metropolitan, and Bakerloo lines in particular.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Do these LU lines share their tracks with conventional trains? Meanwhile, what about lines on the Tokyo Metro and Toei? Many of them got through operations for a few stations with conventional railways nearby. (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Hello? (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
the Underground shares track with the London Overground. Epicgenius (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there really that much sharing of track of the Underground with the London Overground? From what I can tell, it looks like there is a 3-station spur of the District Line that does share track with the London Overground, and another 2-station spur of the District Line that does the same... Oh wait, I see it - it shares quite a bit of route with the Bakerloo Line, yeah.
Point taken - it looks like even the London Underground has some track-sharing monkey business going on, at least on the margins. I don't know what to do about this, but we're going to have to come up with some solution here, long-term... --IJBall (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Basically many metro lines aren't truly and exclusively metros if we follow an ultra strict definition. (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to track-sharing, I'm not sure we have much of a choice, as the references seem pretty clear on the topic. Even so, I'd like to see what the proposal would be here for "borderline" case inclusion in the list on this topic... --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


I disagree with IJBall. The East Rail Line is certainly a metro line. It holds the highest daily ridership of all MTR lines. At 101,000 pphpd, it has the highest hourly capacity of all the lines. The line is completely grade-separated, and the trains run at very narrow headways -- narrower than those of the Tung Chung or Tseung Kwan O lines. The design of the trains are functionally the same as those the urban metro lines, the stations are built to the same design standards, and the user experience is basically the same. Who makes the "rules" for what we can term a metro line? These considerations for what makes a "metro line" indicate the terms are not absolute.
IP user makes a good point about West Rail. By your standards, it's a metro service now. But if it began accepting through trains to West Kowloon, as was proposed in the past, why would the West Rail service suddenly not qualify as a "metro"?
I think to disqualify the East Rail as a metro line would be absurdly pedantic and we ought to just use the total ridership figure provided by MTR. Citobun (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Because definitions mean something, and Wikipedia is supposed to follow outside references, not make up our own rules. If the definitions say that metros must have "reserved tracks", we can't just ignore that at our whim. From the discussion, it sounds like East Rail doesn't currently share tracks (and to "share tracks", I take that to mean a stretch of tracks, not just some minor trackage at an terminus station...). If so, then it's fine as a metro. I don't know about West Rail - but, again, if it shares tracks with other rail at more than just a terminus, then it can't be considered a metro, regardless of the volume of service, by definition. --IJBall (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to what other users said, the East Rail does share tracks, with the Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train. According to that article, "twelve (intercity) trains run in each direction every day", compared with a few hundred on the East Rail. But I still think disqualifying it as a metro would be wrong based on what I and others have said above, and because despite what you've suggested, it seems the definition of a "metro" is not so concretely defined. The East Rail meets the definition of a metro to the highest degree in all respects, EXCEPT that the trackage happens to be used by an intercity train a few times a day.
The West Rail doesn't share tracks, but I think it was designed such that it could accommodate other services in the future. So what then? It's disqualified as a metro too, despite providing the same service to people?
What about the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line? It a spur of the East Rail with some intermediate stations built but not yet in use. It doesn't share trackage, so I guess it's a metro by your definition. But trains from Lok Ma Chau continue onward to Hung Hom. Citobun (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel like you're channeling another well-known editor of this page with this "your definition" stuff. IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION - not only is "reserved track[age]" an explicit defining characteristic of metros according to UITP, but according to both APTA and the U.S. FTA (e.g. heavy rail/metros are "Separate rights-of-way (ROW) from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded") as well. In fact, the definition of a "metro" is pretty concrete - there are basically four or five defining characteristics of a metro, regardless of what this list is doing on the subject in a few exceptional cases. I'm simply following the definitions. It's other editors, who are advocates for the inclusion of specific systems, that are coming up with their own definitions, IMHO.
If East Rail shares tracks with other rail, then it should be out. That's not "my definition" - that's from the explicit definition of what a "metro" is according to three institutions in this field. Remember: "The name of the system [or line] is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion [in this list]." --IJBall (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have zero clue who this other editor is. But if other people are telling you the same thing, you might consider listening.
The "considerations" page I listed says that metro systems "almost" always run on exclusive ROW, and that the divisions between different system classifications "are not always clear". So it's not clear-cut as you're making it out to be. Here is a definition which doesn't state anything about excluding other rail services from the right of way -- only pedestrians and road traffic.
The East Rail runs to metro standard and it would be excessively pedantic to remove it. It's not an issue of "branding": there is, functionally speaking, no distinction between the service provided by East Rail, and the other MTR lines. Citobun (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You are jumping headlong in to an ongoing discussion, and not surprisingly it's clear that you don't understand all that's gone in to it.
The current "Considerations" was heavily rewritten recently by an editor named BsBsBs. He had certain views about the definition of "metro" that have subsequently been overturned by reference and consensus. The very sentence you're quoting - "...metro systems "almost" always run on exclusive ROW..." - is actually one of these. I've been meaning to rewrite that section (again), in light of new references and new consensus, but I'm not going to tackle that job until I can give that job its proper effort and consideration, and that literally may be a couple of months from now on my end.
In any case, regardless how you feel, the references are clear on the criteria of "shared tracks". Currently, the list contains a few systems that pretty clearly violate this criteria, and when somebody down the line objects to them, I'm going to side with the objections for all the reasons I've outlined. You're within your rights to view a fealty to references as "pedantic", but if you're going to go against them, you better make sure that you've got the consensus of all of the other editors behind you on it... --IJBall (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There's no single rule of thumb. For instance, many lines on Tokyo Metro and Toei got through operations with conventional railways nearby. The KCR Corporation, when it was still an operator, was member of the NOVA Group.[15][16] (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the sake of discussion, the East Rail, the West Rail, together with the Ma On Shan Line, weren't always considered part of HK's territory-wide metro or rapid transit network. Some sources considered they to be, some didn't, and considered the MTR to be the only metro or rapid transit of HK. It was only until December 2007 that the KCR Corporation, the owner and operator of these lines, stopped operating these lines and granted a concession to the MTR Corporation Limited. Another reason was that the East Rail had the trains in suburban or commuter configurations since 1982/83 and until the mid-1990s. Back then the East Rail (then known as the British Section of the Kowloon-Canton Railway) was more like a suburban or commuter railway linking booming new towns or satellite cities (namely Sha Tin, Tai Po, Fanling-Sheung Shui) with the city of Kowloon-New Kowloon. (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the trains for Guangzhou, there are also trains for Zhaoxing, Shanghai and Beijing from Kowloon. (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

SKM Warsaw[edit]

Should SKM Warsaw be included to this list? I may be wrong but I see similarity to for e.g. S-Bahn Berlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talkcontribs) ‎13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Szybka Kolej Miejska is a commuter rail system and so it's not eligible for inclusion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this info - I will now delete this system from the List of tram and light rail transit systems... --IJBall (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting Seoul: A Final Accounting?...[edit]


A recent edit has forced my hand here: but now that the edit wars and disruptive editing of the past few months have abated, we need to revisit Seoul's rapid transit network, one more time, to once and for all figure out what we're going to count here, and how we're going to count it. The good news is that I think there is now strong consensus to count this network by operator, which means a unified accounting of the network as "one mega-system" is out. That, at least, is progress.

But now we need to figure out exactly which lines qualify as "metro" and which don't. Here too, mercifully, some clarity has been reached: U Line and EverLine definitely do not qualify as "metro" lines or systems (the former is a light rail system, and the latter is at best a "light metro" and really more akin to a "people mover" (though no reference really seems to call it that...)), so these two are out. Seoul Subway Lines 1-9 are definitely in - though there is some confusion (at least on my end...) on how much of Line 1 actually counts as a "metro" and how much of Line 1 is "something else" (e.g. a commuter rail line). So the real remaining issues seem to be the AREX and Korail lines.

So, on this, we need help from this community. I don't know Seoul nearly as well as others around here do. In terms of operators, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway page is now a help, as it breaks out each line by operator. But what needs to be nailed down is which of the 16 lines (not counting Incheon Subway) are really "metro standards" lines, and which aren't. In appraising this, I would strongly urge us to strictly enforce the "no shared tracks with other railways" rule for metros (if this causes problems for Tokyo, we'll maybe have to revisit that issue, at a later date...), as well as our usual "metro rules" (e.g. electrified, few to no at-grade crossings, high volume of service, etc.).

Once we can finally nail down which of Seoul's lines are truly "metro", we can finally eliminate the temporary "Total" row for Seoul in the table, and integrate all of that information into a descriptive 'Note' to attach to each of the Seoul metropolitan systems.

So can people here nail down, once and for all, which of these lines are "metro" and which are not (and why): AREX; Jungang, Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Bundang, Suin (Korail); and Shinbundang (NeoTrans)? Let's finally get this done!... --IJBall (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The only bullet proof lines (e.g. electrified, no at-grade crossings, high volume of service no shared tracks with other railway services) are the Bundang, Suin, Shinbundang, Ilsan (Korail section of Line 3), Gwacheon + Ansan Lines (Korail sections of Line 4).
AREX: right now it fits the technical definition of a Metro. However KTX high speed rail services are going to use the line sometime in April 2014.
Gyeongchun: Shares tracks with regional rail trains (ITX). 2-3 Trains per hour local commuter service on the entire line all day.
Jungang: Railway line to other side of South Korea with intercity service (Mugunghwa-ho). Urban Seoul section served by 4-5 local commuter trains per hour all day.
Gyeongui: At grade crossings in the outer sections. 4-5 local commuter trains per hour all day.Terramorphous (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have some doubts as to whether the Incheon Subway Line 1 should be counted as part of the SMS. It does have a few transfer stations to the SMS here and there, but metro systems aren't usually counted together just because transfers can be made at these stations. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue with Incheon, as I remember it, is that the transfer for the SMS was at Line 1's commuter rail portion not its metro portion. As such, I'd argue it's, thus, "physically separated" from the rest of the system just like the Staten Island Railway is separated from the rest of the NYC Subway system, and therefore Incheon isn't really "part" of the system (regardless of how its "branded" by the operators...). Is this an accurate characterization? --IJBall (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Scratch the above - I think I was remembering the U Line. Incheon does look like it has several transfer stations with SMS. So, summarizing, the issue really comes down to: should Incheon-to-SMS be considered analogous to something like PATH-to-NYC Subway, or should the fact that it's "branded" with the rest of SMS influence whether it is included in the coming Seoul 'Note'? Yes?... --IJBall (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
We could organize the metro systems by operator, but it would cause a bunch of problems, as evidenced by previous discussions. On the other hand, it would be like a PATH-NYCS transfer, as both the Incheon-Seoul and PATH-NYCS transfers can be done using the same type of farecard (though not necessarily on the same fare). Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, as far as the table is concerned, we already are organizing Seoul by operator. Caveat: We're going to have to add a note about that to the Seoul Subway proper - I was thinking about adding a 'Note' to Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9) along the lines of (and, anyone, please feel free to suggest edits or changes to the following...):

The Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9) is actually operated by three different operators – Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, and Seoul Metro Line 9 Corporation – but because these three operators function more like subsidiaries of the City Government of Seoul(??), it is counted together here as one system in the table.

Re: Incheon - It will still be listed separately in the table. The issue is whether it will be "counted together" with the rest for the purposes of the 'Note' we're going to attach to Seoul's systems. Because it is bundled together with the rest by Seoul Metropolitan Subway's operators, and because we have references (e.g. [17] ) that include it with the rest, I think it'll be hard to separate Incheon out from the rest in the 'Note'... --IJBall (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody help me out here? - In our previous discussion of Seoul, somebody pointed out that Seoul Metro and SMRT were basically subsidiaries of a larger conglomerate. But, in searching through this Talk page, I can't find who said that, and exactly what they said... Does anyone around here recognizing saying this a month or two back, and can you find where you said it (and what you said)?... This will help in crafting the 'Note' I'd like to attach to Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9). TIA! --IJBall (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Questions for @Terramorphous: 1) So, if I'm understanding you correctly, even Lines 1, 2 and 5-9 of the Seoul Subway itself actually share tracks with other rail lines?! If so, how much track sharing is there? (i.e. A little? A lot?) 2) Can we re-discuss the issue with Line 1? I believe originally we were only crediting approximately 8 km of Line 1 as being "metro"? Then, of course, Massy insisted upon counting the entire length of Line 1 as "metro"? Could you expand for us why only the approximately 8 km of Line 1 is actually "metro", and why the rest of Line 1 really isn't "metro"? Is the issue that the rest of Line 1 shares tracks with other rail? Or is it that the headways on the rest of Line 1 are (or were) more than 10 minutes thus violating the old "10 Minute Headways" rule?
Thanks in advance... --IJBall (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question: No, I don't think that lines 2 and 5-9 share any tracks with any other lines. Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I left out Seoul Metro Lines 2-9 because I thought everyone agreed that they are metro lines, as stated by the sources, so there was no need to point it out. Reiterating: "The only bullet proof lines (e.g. electrified, no at-grade crossings, high volume of service no shared tracks with other railway services) are Seoul Metro sections of 2-4, SMRT Lines 5-8, Line 9 and Korail Bundang, Suin, Shinbundang, Ilsan (Korail section of Line 3), Gwacheon + Ansan Lines (Korail sections of Line 4).
Additional info on Lines 3 and 4: The entire line 3 and 4 is electrified, grade separated, frequent and segregated for non-metro traffic. Its just that Korail operates sections of the lines.
  • Line 3 = 38.2 km Seoul Metro + 19.2 km Korail (Ilsan Line)
  • Line 4 = 31.1 km Seoul Metro + 39.4 km Korail (Gwacheon + Ansan Lines)
As for Incheon. I would like to point out the the Foshan Metro is branded as part of the Guangzhou Metro with direct transfers and has the same fares system but is separated.Terramorphous (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm... This reference ([18]) seems to list only the first part of Line 3 in with the "Seoul Subway", but appears to combine both parts(?) when counting Line 4. Odd...
Ah, and this same reference definitely nails down the Line 1 issue, as well.
Re: Incheon - OK, that's good enough for me: we'll keep Incheon out of the count, and keep it completely separate... --IJBall (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
[19] lists only the sections on Seoul subway owned by Seoul city. Ilsan, Gwacheaon, and Anshan are not counted.
Additional info on Line 1: Line one is an amalgamation of several Korail commuter railroads through operating into a common tunnel owned by Seoul Metro similar to the setups seen in Tokyo Japan.
From the North:
Gyeongchun Gyeongwon: Several at grade crossings in the outer sections. Frequent service minimum of 10 trains per hour all day in urban Seoul, decays to as low as 2 trains per hour in the outer sections. KTX high speed rail services planned to run on the line.
Seoul Metro Line 1: electrified, underground, frequent, no intercity or freight trains.
Gyeongbu: A mostly at grade railway line to Busan City in the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. Important national trunk line with KTX, Saemaul-ho, Mugunghwa-ho, Nooriro intercity trains and freight trains sharing tracks in significant sections of Line 1 Local Trains. Line 1 Yongsan - Cheonan Express and Seoul - Cheonan Express Line services behave like regional rail trains, stopping only at major stations and reaching as far as Chungcheong nam, a province that neighbors the province (Gyeonggi-do) that neighbors Seoul (2 provinces away).
Gyeongin: A mostly at grade railway branch line with frequent service and occasional freight and intercity trains.
Janghang: Railway line exclusively in Chungcheong nam province with 1-2 Line 1 trains per hour. The Line has freight and intercity trains and KTX service is being planned. At this point Line 1 Trains are over 100km away from Seoul.Terramorphous (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This is all good stuff - are there references for the info you've been providing (e.g. the Seoul Metro Line 1 info), Terramorphous? References for this kind of info would go a long way towards reversing the damage Massy has done to some of the Seoul Metro pages... --IJBall (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, first of all. Let's stop inventing nonsense out of the air. And blatant lying have no place here either. Remember that *any controversial unsourced material* will be challenged and removed as per WP:Verifiability. Now, that everyone knows that, we can hopefully start a sensible and reasonable discussion on Seoul again. I will start with pointing out some very basic mistakes here:

  • The reference everyone seems to quote [20] has no mention of this invented system called "Seoul Subway Line 1-9". Strictly speaking, it lists lines owned by Seoul City's government.
  • That reference also says that Line 7 extension to Incheon is to open by late 2012, which it did. Since it is outdated, the true number is 327km.
  • Gyeongchun has no grade crossings (Terra is still remembering the now passed away Gyeongchun line from the 80s) and will never have KTX service (which he is again confusing with Wongju-Ganneung Line, a separate line under construction exclusively for HSR)
  • Gyeongbu Line for the metro service of Line 1 operate on a separate track, hence no track sharing.
  • Gyeongin - Are you kidding me? Freight and intercity trains? Where is that nonsense coming from? This is an exclusive metro line with no other traffic whatsoever. This line is metro exclusive. How old are you? I mean like you seem to remember Seoul from the 80s or something.

Now, I have addressed the issues above assuming that track sharing is not allowed, which is an invented original research as raised by BsBsBs. Looking back at the sources..neither APTA nor USDT make any mention of that. The 2011 UITP source does mention something similar to it in a footnote saying that "networks that are functionally separate from the rest of the rail system" are basically metros from what I understand. Now remember they say "functionally" - not "track sharing". That's because the Korean government's legal law defines Line 1's Gyeongbu section for example, as a metro because it has a dedicated track on its own that follow the same path as the intercity trains next to it. In other words, it is functionally separate from the rest of the railway system and hence meets UITP's definition, which is very Eurocentric by the way. Seoul Metro and SMRT are members of UITP, so clearly track sharing is absent from their definitions. But functionally separate is present. And this is exactly how things should be done. And this 10 minute rule is completely absent anywhere in UITP/APTA or USDT and was voted out by consensus by multiple users (except IJBall). Legally, Incheon Subway is part of the metro system, so there's no doubt in including that as I have mentioned before with the legal sources. From what I know, Korail will be completely updating their website on April 1st, with the new updated data for their subways. So we will have direct numbers for all of Korail's metros pretty soon. The issue of sorting metros by systems and not by operators, is something that is not agreed with here. It would require a name change on this article. This will need external consensus and is something we will deal at a later time. Massyparcer (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We already know your position - it's really not necessary to restate it, ad nauseam.
At this point, both you and @Terramorphous: need to produce references to back up your claims. At this point, we're not going with anything else.
Oh, and the discussion has already passed you by: references already have been produced that defines "metros" as precluding "track sharing". Please try to keep up... --IJBall (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Try to keep up? Who are you to advise nonsense to me when there are clearly no mention of track sharing in any of UITP, USDT or APTA's references. Please read the references if you haven't done so. If there are already references from UITP/USDT or APTA that explicitly mention track sharing as you claim, you better prove yourself by posting that reference right now. If you don't, you will prove that you haven't been following the discussion all along. In fact, you have clearly not kept up with the sources that were posted a long time ago - [21] and [22] just to name a few. Again this is gong nowhere without a single source verifying anything you or Terra are advocating. Like you say, a source trumps everything so you better stop inventing nonsense claims like "Seoul Subway Lines 1-9" that is non-existent in the very reference you quote. Massyparcer (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Your two references DON'T PROVE ANYTHING. They don't prove that the lines you are claiming are "metro" are actually metro. They don't prove that those lines don't share tracks with other rail. At this point, Massy, you need to put up or shut up - you need to produce references that actually prove your claims. Because we certainly aren't going to include any lines in the table just on your say-so.
And the second UITP reference that explicitly includes "reserved tracks" in defining "metro" is up-page - I'm sure you can find it if you look. --IJBall (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but still, some of these portions of these commuter rail lines are subway-like in character. They are not subway lines, though. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry in the Line 1 section I meant the Gyeongwon Line not Gyeongchun, my mistake. The Gyeongbu Line has significant track sharing portions [23]. I do not care if sections of the line have dedicated track every commuter rail system has that.Terramorphous (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

수도권 전철 = Metropolitan Train ≠ Subway Train as demonstrated by lines being listed in the table [24] are blatantly not rapid transit. [25] a source that just mentions subway... Terramorphous (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind users to remain polite and civil, and not let this escalate into a catastrophic nuclear war again. Try not to order people to "shut up" and questioning "how old are you?" No personal attacks or name-calling, etc. please. You can discuss things without shouting at people. If you need help with a dispute, read WP:DR. This page should not be a forum. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One user has already been blocked for incivility here. I would suggest actually using the talk page for what it is intended for.
Anyway, while many of the named lines (e.g. Gyeongchun) are commuter rail, I'd say that some portions are subway-like. Not saying that these are subway lines, though. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are extremely subway like. Just like every major commuter rail line in Japan. I think they (korail) should not count the in the final tally unless they are the korail lines we agreed on including (Bundang, Suin, Shinbundang, Ilsan (Korail section of Line 3), Gwacheon + Ansan Lines (Korail sections of Line 4). AKA Korail Lines that reach metro standards throughout their whole length.Terramorphous (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So do we have references for the stats to any of those?... We have a good reference for Seoul Metro (Lines 1-9), but no references for stats for anything of the other of Seoul's various lines right now. I'm hoping to get references for those, so that we can finally finish Seoul off, and move on. --IJBall (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


OK, so trying to get back on track here, let me ask the following:

  • Is anything now missing from our three entries for Seoul in the table?

Do we have everything we need, or do we need to add in the Ilsan Line, and Gwacheon + Ansan Lines, to the table? (And would we add those to the Korail row? Or as separate entries?...) And, if so, does someone have some references to stats for these three lines? Or references for the stats for the Bundang Line, the Suin Line, and the Shinbundang Line, and AREX, either?

Once again, thanks in advance... --IJBall (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So, are we done now? Or do we still need to add a few more lines?... --IJBall (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


OK, no further comments here, so I think it's time to move forward, and wrap this up.

Based on this discussion, the following will be included in Seoul's combined listings:

  1. Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9) - length = 316.8 km: called this based re:@Terramorphous: earlier Talk page comments that Korean Wikipedia has a page with this name about this system (found it: Seoul Subway {Lines 1-9} - Massy will object to both the name (though I don't see how, if this has it's own Korean Wiki page), and the length (though the 327 km length he keeps insisting upon using is completely unsourced currently - only the 316.8 km figure has sourcing...)
  2. AREX - length = 61.0 km: this one's stats are currently unsourced
  3. Shinbundang Line (NeoTrans) - length = 17.3 km: also currently unsourced
  4. Korail's "metro" lines: Bundang Line & Suin Line (but this includes Ansan Line?), plus Ilsan Line (Korail part of Line 3) & Gwacheon Line + *Ansan Line (Korail parts of Line 4) (*but the 12.8 km Ansan line is already included in with the Suin Line's stats???) - length = (52.9 km + {25.9 km, or 13.1 km, or 9.5 km???} + 19.2 km + 39.4 km) for a total of {137.4 km, or 124.6 km, or 121.0 km???}: these are completely unsourced however, and I think these entries really, really need some kind of stats sourcing, especially since the Korail parts of Line 4 and the Suin Line seem to co-operate on a stretch of trackage which makes counting this portion really confusing

We are almost done with this - we just need an accurate accounting of the stats for the Korail entry (i.e. a proper summation of the stats for the four Korail lines...), and then we can finish up, delete the temporary 'Total' row, and attach the 'Note' for the Seoul systems. --IJBall (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Massy is correct that the source is missing the Line 7 Extension into Incheon. However like he repeatably said its OR unless it's sourced. This leaves us with 2 options.
1. keep the 316.8km until massey or one of us finds a reliable source for it.
2. take the 327km and put a citation needed tag.

as for the other lines...
AREX I am not worried about the citation as it will have HSR trains on it in June 2014.
The issue is the Korail Lines that reach metro standard. The Seoul Korail network is an ambiguous goo of metro-like commuter rail and metro standard lines. A source that stipulates them as A or B will be hard to find.Terramorphous (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Option #1 is always the way to go - a slightly "dated", but referenced, stat is always preferable to an unreferenced stat. As these systems expand, it will sometimes take up to a year (sometimes even more!) for the operators to update their websites with new figures. This is to be expected. But I'll take a slightly out-of-date but referenced stat over an unreferenced "stat" that some editor swears up and down is "accurate" any day of the week.
I really think that we need to stick to our guns on this issue, particularly - no stat on this list that is currently referenced should be allowed to be changed unless a new (or updated) reference can be provided for the new figure. That's got to be our official policy. --IJBall (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Separate reply: On Korail, I'm really not expecting we'll ever find a "definitive" reference stating "Korail's [Line A] achieves metro standards, while [Line B] is a commuter rail service..." (Well, at least, not until someone writes "the (English-language) book" on Seoul's rapid transit system...) At this point, I'll just take some references that give me some stats for these lines! so I can figure out a proper accounting of them. --IJBall (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For sources I use [26] as it is an authoritative site for rail construction/plans/designs/drafts in South Korea. This site doesn't allow direct linking so you'll have to walk through a few steps if you want to confirm. Don't rely on the pictures as those are sometimes draft designs and not the final number. But truth be told sometimes these numbers and the numbers on the Korean wiki don't line up 100%.
a) For AREX: click "개통시기별 구분(개통내역)" (opened lines/construction complete). Scroll down to 2007 and click "인천 국제공화철도", 1차 (phase 1) is 40.3km and 1차 (phase 2) is 20.7km.
b) Shinbundang: click "개통시기별 구분(개통내역)", 2011 "신분당선"
c) Line 7 extension (7호선) & Suin Line (수인): under 2012
Find the name in Korean for other lines and do a copy/paste into the search function of your web browser. (I'm splitting my comment into two chunks to make replies easier. And if you really want a reply from me please also write a message on my page and I will reply when I see it.) ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Korean Wikipedia has 2 pages: the first is for Seoul city proper [[27]] and the second for Seoul Capital Area [[28]]. (That is like saying Los Angeles proper vs the greater Los Angeles Area. As LA grew it ate surrounding cities and they all merged more or less into one mega city. This is the same with Seoul; it ate Incheon, Ilsan, Bundang, etc) That is why the first Korean wiki link only has Lines 1-9 as a large chunk of those lines are within the traditional city proper. This is also a bit of a misnomer as a quick glance at Line 1 and 4 will show that only around half of these lines are located within Seoul. *shrugs*
Please note that you will never find a map with just Lines 1-9: even the Korean page has no map of only Lines 1-9. Whenever there is a map they include all lines as they count it has one massive system. Only exception is for Everline and U Line as they don't have transfers agreements. If you want to be picky and pull apart LRT or commuter rail I don't have the energy or the time to care too much, as long as the Seoul Metropolitan Subway page has all the information. Sometimes like "Entire system # km, (subway #km, LRT #km, etc). I don't care as much how it is broken down but I do care that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway page has the collective information (all lines) as that page is for the collective system.
Please understand I might not read this page again for awhile as I haven't the time and the strong opinions are turning me off. If you really want a reply from me please also write a message on my page and I will reply when I see it. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seoul City finally updated the total figure to include Line 7 extension to Incheon that opened in 2012. I made changes accordingly. See Massyparcer (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think we're almost done here. Changes were made yesterday to the Korail entry - I think I included the consensus lines in with Korail. I'd appreciate it if someone could look these revisions over (esp. the new accompanying 'Note') to check for any errors, or needed improvements, etc. It would also be great if someone who can read Korean can look through the new reference I attached to the Korail entry, to double check stats for Korail, AREX, and Shinbundang Line (and also provide proper 'wrapping' for that reference...). Once that's done, we can write up a final 'Note' based on the Seoul 'Totals' row, and finally put the "Seoul Wars" (most recent edition!) behind us. --IJBall (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


And, Yes check.svg Done!

I can't promise that the sum of all of these lines is 100% accurate. But, at the least, the 'Totals' row for the various Seoul systems has been converted to a 'Note' attached to each of Seoul's metro systems. I will mention that even this combined tally still seems to put Seoul behind Shanghai and New York in terms of total system length and number of stations. FWIW.

But, hopefully, this will put a final end to the earlier "Seoul Wars"... --IJBall (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


When should the Beijing Subway be considered open to public and operational? It's 'operational' only on a trial basis in 1971 (when the city was still commonly known in English as Peking), and wasn't opened to the public until 1981. (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - and I know nothing about the specifics of Beijing's system - based on what you're saying, I'd move the opening year to 1981 - opening years should be based on when these systems opened for revenue service. We can always put the earlier dates in an attached 'Note'... --IJBall (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what I think too. (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Trial basis of Line 1 began in 1971 to a select group of people (probably politicians only; much like how the first NYC Subway Line was used as an exhibition for several months before opening). The full operation (when open to all members of the public) began in 1981. So I'd list 1981 for the official opening in the table. Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've done some more research and clarified the period of trial operations in the Beijing Subway article to clarify the misunderstanding about when the subway opened for "revenue operations."
When the Beijing Subway's first line began trial operations on October 1, 1969, it was a demonstration line for invited guests. On January 15, 1971, it opened to revenue service under trial operations. Initially, only members of the public with credential letters from their work units could purchase tickets, which cost Y0.10. This restriction was removed on December 27, 1972 so the subway was open to the general public. The subway line passed its final inspections and ended trial operations on September 15, 1981. Thus, 1981 marks not the time at which the subway began revenue operations but when the subway finally passed the inspection of its construction. During the trial operations period, annual ridership rose from 8.28 million in 1971 to 55.2 million in 1980. See the history section of the Beijing Subway for details and references.
Since the definition for the date of opening here appears to the start revenue operations not approval of final inspections, and because the Beijing Subway, owing to its unique history, was carrying several million passengers and charging fare from 1971, I've changed the date of opening back to 1971 and modified the corresponding note. ContinentalAve (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Will the Beijing Subway be separated by operator as is being done for the Tokyo and Seoul networks? Three lines are operated by HK MTR and the rest by Beijing Mass Transit Railway Operation Corporation Limited. If one is going to be consistent with separation by operator, then this should also occur here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


Should there be a note stating that Tokyo's Yamanote Line didn't start as a metro in 1925? (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I support such a note. (It's not considered part of the greater Tokyo subway by most.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Next question: Should it be listed at all? (This is a serious question, as I know nothing about its particulars...) --IJBall (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If not, why not?
The second question would be: When did it start to be considered a metro/rapid transit? (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer the first question, the reason for not including it is that, as one of the many JR East lines in the Tokyo area, it is often considered commuter rail, not metro, like other JR East lines. The reason it is sometimes included is the operation is segregated from other traffic, which runs on adjacent but separate tracks. I'm not sure if there are any connections between the tracks that are unused in normal service; I don't know the physical plant well enough to comment. That's a question that, if anyone can answer, it'd be appreciated.
The question of when it "became a metro" is a truly difficult one, and part of the reason its inclusion is a question. If treated as a metro line, it wouldn't be the only one where metro tracks run alongside conventional railway tracks, nor the only case of a former conventional railway line being incrementally upgraded to metro standards. But again, when did it become a metro line and not just part of the the JR East commuter network? It's a quandary that need an answer for this list's purpose. oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
If it truly is a "metro" line (and that issue still remains vague, to my thinking...), in reading the Yamanote Line article, it would seem that 1988 would seem to be the "best" date to credit as the start of its "metro" service - quoting from the article:

The contemporary Yamanote Line came into being in 1956 when it was separated from the Keihin-Tōhoku Line and given its own set of tracks along the eastern side of the loop between Shinagawa and Tabata. However, Yamanote Line trains continued to periodically use the Keihin-Tōhoku tracks, particularly on holidays and during off-peak hours, until rapid service trains were introduced on the Keihin-Tōhoku Line in 1988.

So, based on that, I'm going to change the date to 1988, as it seems like that is when Yamanote was completely separated from other rail traffic. --IJBall (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: It's actually possible, from the eastern side of the Yamonote loop, to hop onto a Chūō-Sōbu Line train at Akihabara and go to the other side of the loop to go to Shinkuku. Passengers don't even have to get through any faregate/turnstile. This explains how the loop line is integrated with other JR East lines. (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Oknazevad:There're probably some connections between tracks dedicated to different lines or, more precisely, services. (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I figured something like that. I would like to know exactly about the connections, but the fare integration is expected. Honestly, I have never liked including it; it's a part of the JR East commuter network, even if it is very metro-like in frequency and usage. I say we remove it. Then the "when did it become metro?" question, for which any date is at best a guess and close to WP:OR, is moot. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Fare integration shouldn't be a criteria at all. The London tube got fare integration with some regional/commuter trains too. In some other systems there are even integration between metros and feeder bus services. (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Many, if not most, modern systems share fare cards or other payment systems with local buses and even commuter rail lines. The point here is that Yamanote is treated by just about everything outside this list as part of the JR East commuter network, even if demand is such that trains run with metro-like frequency. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was always wondering why the Yamanote line was added to the list. The general public considers it a metropolitan train line. It even has one at-grade crossing at Kumagome.[29] However that alone should not be the criterion of removal.Terramorphous (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any at-grade crossing remaining on the Staten Island Railway? (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope. oknazevad (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
But then again, the SIR doesn't collect fares except at two or three stations, so... Epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What does that have to do with it? It's a flat fare, the same as a standard subway fare. It's collected on entry for some, exit for others. There is a loophole for those not using the busiest stations, but I don't see how that remotely disqualifies it. And that's not the point of this section anyway. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The point was that the existence of just one or two level crossings doesn't make a line not a metro. This is especially true for systems that were converted incrementally. Some substandard features were grandfathered if there are constraints to get rid of them. (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. And I agree with you that we cannot be too strict in thinking one or two crossings tosses an entire system out of the list (again, the Chicago 'L' is the go-to example there; no one would ever correctly claim it is not a metro, yet it has a couple of legacy crossings on the outer parts of the system). My response was in relation to Epic's mentioning of the fare collection on the SIR. I was confused as to his point, as I wasn't following his logic there. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I was asking that question because all of the other metros in the world collect fares at all their stations, not just one or two. Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, does the lack of existence of fares disqualify a railway from being metro? Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I don't think that matters; fare collection varies so much from system-to-system, I don't think an unusual set-up matters. Remember, people exiting at St. George or Tompkinsville do pay fares at the exit turnstiles, and exit fares are not unheard of historically. The SIR is not fare-free. You make an error in your assumption.
There is the loophole that people not originating or terminating at those stations can ride for free, but a) the vast majority of riders are connecting to the SI Ferry at St. George and b) many of those passengers are connecting to the NYC Subway in Manhattan, where, depending on direction of travel, they've either paid on SI and are getting a free transfer to the Subway or have paid on the Subway and are getting a free transfer to the SIR, courtesy of the MetroCard's transfer windows (the same one that allows the subway-to-bus transfers mentioned above). Again, not fare free.
And again, what does this have to do with the Yamanote line?oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a note stating why it's 1988? (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, because: 1) the 'Legend' is clear about what is meant by 'Year opened', and 2) it's unclear if Yamanote is going to be sticking around in this list for much longer anyway - if a current or recent Japanese reference is produced categorizing this line as something other than "metro" (e.g. if a Japanese ref. calls it "commuter" or "local" rail, or something), then I'd support tossing it from the list even if it technically meets the definition of "metro"... --IJBall (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Are the digits 1988 sufficient to inform readers about its nature as a system converted incrementally from conventional railway? (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: FTR, this system was just deleted from the list. Personally, I'm still on the fence about it's inclusion - if it doesn't share track with other rail, I'm having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be included, unless its operator specifically categorizes it as "commuter rail". FWIW... --IJBall (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Robert Schwandl is listing Yamanote line as metro-like system. --Jklamo (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


If the East Rail is counted as a metro system and part of MTR's metro system, MTR's starting date should be 1910 instead of 1979.

On the other hand, regarding the current note for the MTR, the East Rail didn't actually begin its metro service in 1979. It was done in stages.., first the old DMUs were replaced in stages by EMUs between 1982 and 1983. Then in the mid-1990s these EMUs were modified from a suburban or commuter configuration to a metro configuration. (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On the first point, from the 'Legend', it clearly states:

"Year Opened - The year the system was opened for commercial service at metro standards. In other words, parts of the system may be older, but as parts of a former light rail or commuter rail network, so the year that the system obtained metro standards (e.g. electrified) is the one listed."

So opening dates for metro systems are not when rail lines opened for service (i.e. as conventional railways), but when they achieved "metro standards".
On the second point, feel free to change the opening date to when you think it should accurately be (though it will definitely help if you can find and attach a reference that supports the new 'opening date'). --IJBall (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, when should be the actual year for the East Rail? 1982/83, where the railway was electrified in two stages, or 1996 to 1999, when the EMUs were refurbished (and thereby known as MLRs)? (By the way, those weren't DMUs.., but compartments with diesel locomotives.) (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that the line became metro in 2007, when the KCRC ceased operating. Epicgenius (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing actually happened in 2007 apart from the passage of the relevant legislations and the change of logos and signs. They didn't even remove the faregates at interchange stations until late 2008. (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Then I'd say 1982/1983, because that was when it was converted from DMUs (non-metro) to EMUs (metro). Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As 116 already said, it wasn't DMUs. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Those EMUs weren't in metro configuration (well, by HK standard) until the mid 1990s, when they were refurbished. In the early days when the EMUs were in place, there were washrooms on some cars, and the number of cars on each trainset wasn't standardised. (On side note, is it a must for metros to be fully electrified?)

I'm still looking for the date when the KCR Corporation got their membership in the NOVA group. Not too sure if that's relevant. (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So far, all metros are fully electrified (at least on the service routes—the New York City Subway has several unelectrified connections like the Linden Shops, and the eBART system for San Francisco will not be electrified). Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
eBART is 100% going to be a light rail system. This is no different than, say Seoul Subway and the U Line - it doesn't matter that either eBART or the OAC will be in a "unified fare structure" with BART: neither can legitimately be considered a "metro" system. When eBART goes in to service, I plan on adding it to the List of tram and light rail transit systems, not here. (OAC I guess is really a "people mover" system...) --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Would the date which they joined NOVA be relevant? (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Annual Ridership to the Metro systems[edit]

Does anyone object to me adding the annual ridership stats to the metro systems? It is essential information when dealing with public transportation. Staglit (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this goes hand-in-hand with the merge proposal involving the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article, this move should not be done lightly, or without discussion.
It also matters how it's done. You're putting the Ridership over as the righthand-most column. That is probably not the best way to do this - see, for example, List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership. If we do this, a much better table set-up would likely be the following for columns: Location, Country, Name, Year opened, Ridership, Stations, System length (I'd actually advocate flipping these two columns) & Year of last extension.
Also, there's the whole issue of, 1) how do you indicate what year the Ridership data is coming from? (e.g. see Metro systems by annual passenger rides table), and 2) referencing all of this "new data". And it still has to be done in such a way that the Merge proposal with Metro systems by annual passenger rides is kept in mind.
FTR, I actually think I oppose adding Ridership data to the main table on this page, as I don't think this table needs to get any "squishier" than it already is - my vision for merging this page and the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article is to append the latter as a second table further down this page...
It's possible that no other editors agree with me on that. Regardless, I'd like to see some response from other editors before we make this move... --IJBall (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually think that Ridership by Year is more important than System length and year of last extension, but that is another discussion. Staglit (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ridership data without System length info is pretty meaningless, IMO - that's actually the current main problem with the Metro systems by annual passenger rides list: all of those Ridership figures are provided without the context of the size of the system listed. System size factors into Ridership levels as much as anything does... --IJBall (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I support this merge, and if there is concern for table width I'd suggest merging the "Location" and "System" columns similar to how they are presented in Metro systems by annual passenger rides. I'd simply put the year and citation all in the same column, with the year in parenthesis ie: 123 million (2014)[1]. That would mean only one column was added, but two were merged, thus there should be no real expansion of the table's width. Liamdavies (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ blah
I think this is the best way to do this. Almost every system has it's locations name in it anyway. Staglit (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion: It might be worthwhile to work up a "mock-up" of this in someone's Sandbox so we can see what it looks like (and make suggestions) before we try to implement any changes over here. --22:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: See also parallel discussion at: Metro systems by annual passenger rides Talk page.

Yes, I think this is starting to work... I'd urge everyone who's interested to take a look at what is being proposed over at Staglit's sandbox page - if you have suggestions or comments (or complaints), post them here! But, as now proposed, this will be a relatively simple "2-column switch move", so the "revised table (with Ridership figures) will look very similar to the current one - only the "City" column is really being replaced... --IJBall (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd leave both on, and in fact would say its a requirement to have both. Not every city is obvious from the system name. MBTA and SEPTA come to mind. I really thing its a terrible idea to remove the city name. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
oknazevad: I guess this is a problem, but I suppose that we could always put the city in brackets. Staglit (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Or just leave a separate city column (for sortability) but shrink the width of all columns. As it stands there is a LOT of empty space in some of the columns. We could easily narrow those columns to preserve the separate city column. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The current table columns that look to be the best candidates for (width-)shrinkage would seem to be the City column and the Country column. I wouldn't advise shrinking the System name column much more, and the other columns likely can't be shrunk any more due to References & Notes forcing them to keep a certain width... --IJBall (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In light of oknazevad's concerns, a small 'mockup' of the latest proposal for a table that merges the Ridership figures in with the existing List of metro systems can be found at my Sandbox page. If anyone has questions, comments, concerns, or ideas, about this, please post them here. (On my end, I still don't like how the Ridership figures are presented there, so I'm still interested in other peoples' ideas on that...) --IJBall (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I like it, for the most part. I like the way the columns are all about the same width. The only thing I'd do differently is to move the ridership column to the right end. Maybe go the order: city-country-name-opened-length-stations-ridership-last extension. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
For people who want to do a quick 'Ridership per km(/mi)" calc. (e.g. see: List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership) it'd be best if the Ridership & System length columns were right next to each other. The current table already does Stations, then System length - maybe the best order would be City-Country-Name-Opened-Stations-System length-Ridership-Last extension? --IJBall (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That's fine too. Honestly, I'm not so concerned about the column order, other than thinking that city-country-name should be the first three, in that order, then probably "opened" after that. I'm wondering if it makes sense to have they last extension column next to the opened one, to group the similar data points together there. The stations-length-ridership combo makes sense as well. Actually, thinking on that, that's what I like the best: city-country-name-opened-last extension-stations-length-ridership. That way the first three together locate it, the next to give a brief glance of history, and the last three give an overview of size through statistics. That makes the most sense to me. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, yeah, that looks good. We'll go from there. --IJBall (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

IJBall and oknazevad: Is the chart on Ij Balls sandbox? If so, I could start editing it right now. CTAГЛИT (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

CTAГЛИT - yes, an agreed-upon 'test' version of the "merged list" is up at my Sandbox page, and is there any chance you can hold off on any changes to the "merged list" for now?... I am getting really close to finishing up referencing the List of metro systems, and in "fixing" most of the references at the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article. I think it'll only take me another week or two to finish all that up. Once the List of metro systems is all referenced (and maybe a couple more "light metro" systems get deleted from the list...), then I think we can go ahead and "merge" the content. That's next on my 'To Do' List, after getting the referencing done... --IJBall (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I Oppose this motion. Not on principal, it sounds like a great addition. But on practicality. I cannot see how you will be able to collect data from the same year for *every* metro system, some of which are only vague estimates. If you collect data from different years, then the list is meaningless and confusing, since it is meant to be for comparison. Unless some international agency publishes this data in it's entirety and updates it regularly, then I simply cannot see how this is feasible. Mattximus (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it will be acceptable to put the year the statistics were from in brackets. And anyway, I'm sure there are other inconsistencies within the table, such as what System Length and year of last extension constitutes as, and what a single station is. CTAГЛИT (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
FTR, that was always my objection to the original Metro systems by annual passenger rides list as well. I think when I got there, data for some of the systems went as far back as 2008(!!), and that is still the case for some of the Japanese systems. And, from a practical standpoint, I don't really care for how appending the "year" on to the Ridership data looks (e.g. see: here), though it'll clearly "fit" in the table (which was my original concern...). In any case, I definitely think we should take a look at the full "mock up" before agreeing to merge the lists. But, as I said above, that is now a secondary priority for me - mostly finishing up the referencing on this page goes first. And the latter is going to have to wait until I finish up my 'real world' job obligations this week... --IJBall (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Greatly support it. Your template is excellent, Staglit. I would probably organize the information in the order: name-country-opening year-ridership-stations-system length-last extension. However, this is going to be discussed! :) --Pavlovič (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As anticipated by Staglit, the ridership data article should be merged with this one. His template is neat and clean, and I ask you to officially state your support for this initiative. Mine is a +1, of course. --Pavlovič (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things: First, there was no need to start a new section, as the prior discussion is not old, and as IJBall noted, the current work is on improving references. Patience is needed here. This is also not a proper RFC. As such I've moved your comment up to the existing discussion.
Secondly, the column order at IJBall's sandbox is better, for the reasons I stated above; it's a more logical grouping of similar data points. The latest extension date should be next to the opening date, and the other statistics together. So in principle, I agree, but I don't see the rush and think we should make sure it's done right. oknazevad (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think my template is better, but IJBalls is still very good and will definitely work well, and if it is decided that my chart is inferior, then I will be okay with it. However, I am not as happy about being left out of this project, as I am the one that revived the idea... But oh well. Staglit (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The referencing project is almost done - I anticipate I will finish that by Monday: I just need to take a look at the Venezuela systems, and then go back and look at some of the Asian systems I skipped at the time (namely, Tokyo, Manila, Bangkok, and Singapore, primarily; and also to finally finish off the Seoul 'note').
In the meantime, I don't think there is anything preventing someone from expanding what's at my Sandbox page, or taking what at what's my Sandbox and moving to their own Sandbox page and expanding it there - they certainly have my permission to do so now (at least to start on revising the first third, or so, of this table to include the Ridership stats). On the "column order" thing, I definitely admit that I prefer what Oknazevad and I came up with, because I feel strongly that the 'Ridership' stats should be right next to the 'System length' stats as those two stats correlate most closely... In any case, I think if Staglit wants to start working on adding the Ridership stats to the table, it's OK to start doing that this weekend.
One last thing - while I generally agree with Mattximus' objection above, I don't think it's a strong enough objection to scuttle this project. So let's start putting the new merged table together, and see if there are any suggestions for "improving its look". --IJBall (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I will start working on IJBALLS chart IN MY SANDBOX. I would encourage EVERYONE to help out because it will be a big job.Staglit (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to help out, when I can, but I've got some other priority Wiki projects that I've been putting off that I'd like to get to in the very near future... --IJBall (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


OK, it is now time for all interested editors to take a look at Staglit's sandbox page.

This is a pretty close to a final version of what the merged List of metro systems/Metro systems by annual passenger rides page will look like.

There are a couple of issues to consider:

  1. Should the 'system' references and the 'ridership' references be all bundled together (as they are now at Staglit's sandbox page), or should they be split up in to separate sections? (FTR, I think I will advocate for splitting them...)
  2. Should the 'system' 'notes' and the 'ridership' 'Notes' be kept separate (as they are now at Staglit's sandbox page), or should the 'notes' be all bundled together? (And I'll advocate keeping them "split" as a they are now...)

One other thing - this version of the table is still "too squished", so I think we should widen the columns (e.g. for proper display in "widerscreen" monitors), and those of us like myself with smaller laptop screens will just have to suck it up. For an example of this, see: List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs – there, the table is, by necessity, quite wide (i.e. wider than a laptop screen). I think we need to do something similar with the 'merged' table for this page.

Please post any thoughts back here! --IJBall (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that we must either merge all of the notes into one category and the citations into another, becuase it doesn't make much sense having one section just dedicated to Ridership. If so, we should divide all the notes and citations into their own individual sections. Staglit (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Why doesn't it make sense to have a separate section for Ridership refs & notes? Having just one massive 'Notes' section, and then one massive 'References' section, makes it much harder for people to pick out the references (or 'notes') dedicated to 'systems stats' vs. references dedicated to 'ridership'. Not only will this be a huge wall of text (look at the current 'References' section at your sandbox page!) that will be intimidating to readers, I also think it'll end up being a discouragement to editors who want to update system stats and (esp.) ridership figs (by looking through the references). AFAIK, there's nothing in Wikipedia's WP:MOS that "prevents" or "disallows" the use of multiple references sections. In this case, I think 4 sections - Notes on systems & statistics, Notes on ridership figures, References on systems & statistics, and References on ridership figures, would be strongly advisable... P.S. If other editors agree with this, I'll do the "heavy lifting" to implement (coding) the 4 sections at your Sandbox page. --IJBall (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Very well, but I still think that subividing the sections more would be even better. (Perhaps Ridership, Length, Stations and Other, but that really depends on how many there are of each, I'm very busy and haven't got much time.)Staglit (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
First off, thanks for sharing your thoughts!... As to your suggestion, in general (i.e. in most cases), it's the same reference for both Length and Stations, so subdividing those in to separate 'Reference' sections likely wouldn't work well. Opening dates and Last extension dates are often separate references from the Length/Stations refs, but in a number of cases a single reference will actually yield up all of Opening dates, Last extension dates, Length and Stations for a particular system. This is why further subdividing a References on systems & statistics into Length, Stations and Dates reference sections will be difficult, and perhaps not as useful... Ridership stats, OTOH, I think are from separate references from the 'System' references in nearly all cases, so a division between these is much more useful. But, on my end, I'm not sure I am going to do anything substantive on this, at least for a few days, as I want to see if we draw any more comments here before proceeding. --IJBall (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Great design overall! I guess, though, that the images on the right should have a meaning. Having Beijing, NYC and London makes no sense as they are not the three most heavily used, or most extensive networks in that order. I think we should decide which systems to feature, as many have a lot of rights to appear on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Explanation for images: Shanghai = longest metro system; New York = most stations; London = oldest metro system. After the ridership data is merged in, we can discuss which three system's images would be the best to display, though I am of the opinion that one of those images should always be the London Underground as the oldest metro system... --IJBall (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Fine, but I think this choice should be explained in the respective image captions. I would also add Beijng, as the most heavily used. -- (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it about time that we finally merge the articles using the sandbox material? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Project is still "in progress". It's almost done - there are just a few more things that I'd like to do first, and then we'll replace the current table with Staglit's version. I'm hoping to get all that done in the next couple of weeks – this coming weekend will likely be the "big push" on my end to finish up what I think needs to be done... --IJBall (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Update #2[edit]

Last chance(!) for all interested editors to take a look at the List of metro systems/Metro systems by annual passenger rides 'merge' project at Staglit's sandbox page – the project is extremely close to being done now, and I'd expect that we're within a week of the version at Staglit's Sandbox page replacing the bulk of the current List of metro systems article. This is pretty close the last chance for interested parties to offer comments and suggestions before the Ridership data gets merged into this page, and the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article is pared down to a REDIRECT page. So: last call! --IJBall (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seoul AREX[edit]

For anybody who knows, has AREX started sharing tracks with KTX or has the plan been cancelled? If it is sharing tracks, now is the time to take it out of the list. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Opening in a month. SourceTerramorphous (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
AREX started sharing tracks with KTX on June 30th, 2014, with over 20 services a day.
Removing AREX. Terramorphous (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Question: Will the entire AREX line be shared with KTX, or just a portion? If just a portion, how should we handle that? --IJBall (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just past Digital Media City Station the KTX will interline with the AREX. So 80% of the line shares tracks with the KTX. I would just take the whole line off, both services are owned by Korail and its really no different from the RER or Crossrail.Terramorphous (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

London Underground[edit]

I was wondering what the point of the London Underground bit in the lead was? Isn't it kind of random, just there, with no other mentions of any other systems? Can it be removed? Staglit (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It was added to verify the London "superlative". The other two "superlatives" (longest system, most stations) didn't really have good quality independent references at the time, and ended up being highly controversial (with a lot of arguments about Shanghai & New York vs. Seoul). But London did have a good independent reference for it's "oldest metro" status, which is why it's there. If someone can get some decent references for: highest ridership, longest system, and most stations, then those "superlatives" can be added back to the article's lede along with London. --IJBall (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: I should add, that lede sentence about London's opening as a "metro" (and its reference) is also there as conclusive evidence for when people do silly things like change Athens' "open" date to 1869, or Sao Paolo's "open" date 1867 (like someone did recently), or even change London's "open" to 1863, that they're definitively wrong. FWIW... --IJBall (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it DOES sound kind of silly, as it's a completely isolated sentence. Sounds like a boast, rather than information. -- (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Editors can feel free to reword that, if they wish, just as long as the overall meaning isn't lost: that the London Underground is the oldest "metro" system" in the world, and it became a metro in 1890 with the opening of its first electrified underground line. The last part is important because anyone trying to change any opening date in this list to earlier than 1890 is, by definition, incorrect. --IJBall (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Then what about putting it in the legend section for opening date? I honestly feel very strongly that this information does not belong in the lead... There should be something general about all metro systems, as this is an article covering all systems, not something on just one system.Staglit (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No opinion on that. Honestly, it would go better in the lede, if we could properly reference some of the other "superlatives". But I just looked at Kildor's UITP reference to see if it would help elucidate which metro system has the highest ridership, and it turns out it wouldn't as it bundles Tokyo's systems together and ranks Tokyo #1. So, right now, "oldest system" is the only "superlative" with a good solid reference. Now where that should properly go in the article?... [shrug] I dunno. I just know that we need to have it somewhere in the article, because we continually get people trying to change, for example, Athens' "open" date to 1869 and this referenced London "superlative" stuff just proves that that kind of thing is wrong. --IJBall (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't there a to make certain thing invisible in the actual article but visible in the source code? We could put a warning like that in each section that may be affected (Like the Opening Date Section for Athens Metro). Isn't there already one warning editors not to put in Ottawa light rail in? If we really want to put the superlatives in, we could make a new section or put it under the section "Legend". To be honest, I don;t think its that important and shouldn;t be there, especially if there is only one super whatever... It's just messed up. Its not that much a problem, is it? ( You would know better than me probably) Staglit (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I would oppose removing the London Underground sentence from the article entirely - it's referenced, and it's important. --IJBall (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose it as well. It's just that someone has to write a more structured introduction, probably also using information from the 'Considerations' paragraph, and integrate these superlatives as informative sentences. -- (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
On my 'To Do' list for this summer is to revise the 'Considerations' section for this article anyway. I'm hoping to get to that it the next month. I'll try to remember to take a look at this when I do... --IJBall (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Málaga Metro[edit]

Málaga Metro opened today (listed already in u/c section). But I am not sure about its inclusion (of full inclusion) into main list, as it is another light rail/light metro case. Although branded as light metro, it is operated by LR vehicles. Line 2 is fully underground, but Line 1 has surface section, that includes multiple level crossings. Frequency of service will be 7 min in peak and 100 min off-peak. I think at least Line 1 should be excluded. --Jklamo (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'd prefer a reference that mentions the level crossings (do you have one?...). IMO, 7 minute frequencies would probably qualify it for metro status (if given more information about train length and passenger capacity...), if it were fully grade-separated. And I'll note that, at least, categorizes it as a "metro" (but they also categorize the Palma Metro as a "metro" too, and that's an absolute joke...) But we have at least the one reference already categorizing it as a "light metro", so if there's no objection, I'll move it to the "light metros" page - I'll wait 24 hours to see if there are any other comments. --IJBall (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
100 min frequency off-peak??? Maybe you meant 10 mins? 100 mins is crazy, compared to the 7 min for peak. Nobody would call a system where you had to wait 100 mins for a train a metro system. I don't really think it qualifies as a metro if it uses tram vehicles, and just by looking at the photos on, you can see that it isn't grade separated.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's every 10 minutes, off-peak: [35]. Generally, around here though, the frequencies during peak hours are the headway criteria that's looked at. Plenty of true metro systems have headways of 10 mins, or worse, 'off-peak'. --IJBall (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the source for level crossing (at they are also easily visible on Google Maps. --Jklamo (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For a system like this, I really think level crossings are a "No Go" zone for this list. I'm going to go ahead and remove Málaga Metro from here, and move it over the the Light metros list. --IJBall (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Line 2 is fully underground. I don't understand why Metro Malaga is not included in that list (at least that line) as Seville Metro, which is also in Light Metro's list.Stagiraswarrior (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Stagirasworrior is right, Saville is pretty much the same as Malaga. Both use five section trams, with a capacity of about 230 per tram they would have to have a serive every 1:20 to crack 20,000 passengers per hour (counting both directions). Saville metro should be removed from this list. Liamdavies (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Line 1 is an LRT line and it shares tracks with line 2, the interlined section will be extended further east. Seville on the other hand is 1 fully grade separated isolated line.Terramorphous (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Seville mighy be grade separated, but it's operated with 31 metre long trams ( ); it's not an actual metro, it's a light metro like DLR in London and should be removed from this list. Liamdavies (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
While I don't think use of LRVs per se should disqualify a system from "metro status" and inclusion here, your earlier point about Seville's PPHPD stats are compelling. If there are no objections, I'll remove it from this list (while still leaving it up at the Light metros article) by the end of the weekend... However, it needs to be noted – it's not just Spain's systems that seem to fall into this "Light metro" 'gray area': most of Italy's and Turkey's systems probably don't qualify as anything more than "light metros" if one looks at their PPHPD capacity... --IJBall (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Valencia Metro[edit]

This article does not mention Metrovalencia .? Spain --SoulGooner (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

SoulGooner: Looks like that is a commuter rail, not a metro. Staglit (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Metrovalencia is a weird hybrid system (like the Tyne & Wear Metro) - I believe it's listed at the Light metros page, but it does not belong here... --IJBall (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Copenhagen Metro[edit]

Appartenly Copenhagen Metro is a light metro, not a Metro, so shouldn't it be removed? I'm also mentioning the PACTO speedline, as it is also listed at List of Light Metros. Staglit (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, there's no "policy" here (yet) that systems must either be listed here, or at the Medium-capacity rail transport systems article. I think we may want to move in that direction. But in the case of something like the Copenhagen Metro, it's going to be tough - lists as a "light metro", but UITP includes it in the list of world metro systems (along with a number of other "light metros"). Systems like this are probably going to end up being listed at both places... --IJBall (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
PATCO definitely belongs here. It is in no way "light" , and any inclusion is such a list is an outright error, period. oknazevad (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
PATCO is not the one listed there - the one listed there is the Norristown High Speed Line, which is a very odd duck that even APTA (probably somewhat charitably) calls "light rapid rail". --IJBall (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


I am confident that the DLR is a Light Metro System. It usually only has 2 -4 carriagres per trainset, and Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system describes a Light Metro as a train with 3-6 carts. According to this, (In the editors notes section at the bottom of the page), the DLR can only carry 6600 passengers an hour in each direction, which meets both definitions. It is grade sperated, but really I think that a kind of pointless critera. There so many things that have grade separation, like the Rennes Metro and the Butovskaya Line in Moscow. Thanks <3 Staglit (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, the only difference between a "metro" and a "light metro" is the "passenger volume capacity" criteria (which is currently missing from this articles 'Considerations' section, which is why I need to rewrite that section...). Unfortunately, there is no referenced cutoff number assigned to the difference, though I'd say that 20,000 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD) is a reasonable figure to look for for that - less that that and it's a "light metro"; more than that and it's a "metro". And it sounds like the DLR doesn't even get close to 20,000 PPHPD, so it really shouldn't be considered a "full metro".
Which does lead to a problem actually - the presence of "level crossings" probably downgrades a system to purely "light rail". Because of that, some of the systems currently listed at the medium-capacity rail transport system article should probably be booted... --IJBall (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it is very hard information to find: It took me an hour to find the DLR passenger for hour, and I assume that for systems not in English speaking countries, it will be even more difficult. I suppose we could calculate it ourselves with the train max capacity, then figure out how many run per hour, ect..
But also, it is only possible to find what the PPH is for individual lines! I feel like if we were to use that criteria, we would end up with many systems getting split... kind of like the Moscow Metro line is with the Butovskaya Line. I'm sure the Waterloo and City Line of the London Underground is below the 20 000 passenger line, but I can't say for sure.
Lastly, I know this is completely unreferenced, but doesn't 20 000 people an hour seem like a lot of people? I know it is a reliable website where you got that from, but... I have my suspicions. Staglit (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
And one last thing... What is the difference between a light metro and a premetro? Certainely those could be considered kind of the same thing, right? Thanks! Staglit (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a reference somewhere on this Talk page (it may be in the archives now) that assigns a value of "30,000 PPHPD" as the value for a metro-level system. In fact, metro systems often have even higher PPHPD values (like 40,000 or 50,000 PPHPD, believe it or not!). Light rail systems, OTOH, seem to have about 10,000-18,000 PPHPD capacities. So I think 20,000 PPHPD is a reasonable value for cutoff for "light metro" vs. "metro". And, yes: if you know train capacity, train length (i.e. number of traincars per train), and headway, you can calculate PPHPD for a system - but you're also correct: getting all of those values for a system is often hard to come by (e.g. I can't find them for Monterrey Metro, and I've been looking...).
On your other question, here are the differences:
  • Light metro: all of the same criteria as a "full metro" (i.e. electrified, fully grade-separated with no track sharing, etc.), just lower passenger volume capacities due to either: 1) smaller trainsets (e.g. 3-car trainsets), and/or lower headways (e.g. 10 minutes or more).
  • Semi-metro: a streetcar (or light rail) system with a "rapid transit"-standards section (e.g. a subway section) - e.g. Muni Metro.
  • Premetro (or pre-metro): a streetcar or light rail system that has a "rapid transit"-standards section constructed as part of a planned conversion of the entire system to "rapid transit"-standards at a later date - e.g. Charleroi Metro is an example of this.
Basically, true "premetro" systems are quite rare - most people on Wiki are misusing the term "premetro", using that term when they actually mean "semi-metro", but the term "semi-metro" is basically unknown in the English-speaking world... --IJBall (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
God thats complicated... I feel like if we use that 20 000 threshold we would end up cutting a whole bunch of systems from this list and putting them into light metro... I think that is something that should be avioded... Already, I'm sure people (including me) are going on wild goose chases to find info on a particular system, realizing that its not a real metro, even though in the title it says metro and the Wikipedia page says its a metro. I think dividing things into specific sections in confusing, even if it is "correct". I think just articles on Light Rail, then one intermediate rail, and then metros should be made, not all these "Pre metros' and "semi metros" and "Light metro"... You can see how this might be a problem. Don;t worry, I'm not going to do anything about this at all, but I'm just putting it out there.Staglit (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Several editors (and I guess I'm one of them) are already playing 'whack-a-mole' on the "premetro" thing, so don't worry about that. On the "light metro" or "intermediate rail" - the medium-capacity rail transport system page is basically using those terms interchangeably, so it's already not applying the "fully grade-separated" criteria hard, which is why that article is currently including systems like the Tyne & Wear Metro. So I'm not sure it's too complicated currently. As to the specific 20,000 PPHPD value, that's just a guideline value that I use personally - I'm not suggesting this page use that value explicitly. But I will say this: 20,000 PPHPD is actually not a very high hurdle to clear - I'd guess that the vast majority of systems currently listed would clear 20,000 PPHPD passenger volumes easily: i.e. it actually wouldn't cut many more systems besides those already cut recently. --IJBall (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn[edit]

Why is it not included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the better question is whether we should even continue to include the Hamburg S-Bahn in the list when of its total route length "31.9 km are shared with regional and cargo traffic". --IJBall (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Hamburg should be taken off list. I believe there are also in-level intersections.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
With no objections, I'll delete Hamburg S-Bahn by Monday then – including the S-Bahns has always been problematic (as this very topic shows!), and while I feel like Berlin's S-Bahn actually does meet the "metro criteria", the more you look at the other S-Bahns them the more you find problems like the ones with Hamburg's... --IJBall (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. As you say, the S-Bahns are always problematic, as the S-Bahns and U-Bahns are often specifically contrasted as the difference between metros and suburban systems. Even the UITP report the Kildor linked above specifically calls out the Berlin S-Bahn as not a metro. So I'd have no objection to its removal too. oknazevad (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I'd never noticed that at the bottom of the UITP report before. Based on that, I do now think Berlin's S-Bahn needs to be cut too, as we now have a reference specifically defining its exclusion from metro systems. --IJBall (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
We had an enormous discussion a while back regarding Munich S-Bahn (Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 14). The answer is; it is not the name, it is some characteristics that define a metro. For example, no level crossings with roads (maybe 1 or 2) and no regional and long distance trains on the tracks. Munich S-Bahn has more than 50 level crossings and share tracks with long distance trains and freight trains. --BIL (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. But the change between then and now is that we now have reference from UITP that specifically excludes even the Berlin S-Bahn from the "metro" category as well – that means we now need to exclude all S-Bahn type systems, as UITP does. --IJBall (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you group Hong Kong when it's still a british colony[edit]

I'm sorry but I just would like to ask a question to the Users here. What if internet and wikipedia exists before 1997? Would you group MTR in with the name of Hong Kong or the UK? (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, there was a massive discussion on this in this talk page. I'm too lazy to find it, but its not too far back in the archives. Staglit (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Instantnood. Go away. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
They are definitely not going to answer the UK, but are too afraid to say Hong Kong. As it shows their "double-standards" GB Lothian (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be the one, and only, time I comment on this, because I'm not going to get dragged in to another Instantnood fishing expedition – but the situation before 1997 is wholly irrelevant to Hong Kong's current situation, and to the clear Consensus at this article (and at List of tram and light rail transit systems) which is that only sovereign states be listed in the 'Country' column (note that Puerto Rico isn't listed separately, either), as is made 100% abundantly clear by the 'Legend' at both articles. One more point - whatever arrangements were made or suggested in April-June 2014 were immediately invalidated once it was clear that "bad faith" was involved by one editor who was, in fact, an Instantnood sock – other editors immediately undid that false consensus and restored the previous consensus, as is dictated by Wikipedia policy. --IJBall (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, of the wole world's 7.183 billion population, only Instantnood decides HKG flag is appropiate. Definitely. Just the whole world is full of Instantnoods, like HIV viruses. But then, me, being Instantnood, wants a discussion, if you decides there's no reply, me, Instantnood, will go and implant my suggestions. Me, Instantnood, thinks that adding HKG flag is not without it's use, especially it shows their signal systems, being left-hand traffic, built standards and such. Me, Instantnood, has also edited the [note 18] saying that " The East Rail Line that began metro service in 1979 overlapped with a conventional railway that had operated since 1910.", but was reverted due to me being instantnood. The KCR BS/East Rail neither bagan metro service nor began service in 1979. It was just approved by the coucil in 1979 to electrify the KCRBS. It only has an urban and suburban railway service at the time when the urban service(Sha Tin to Kowloon)started service 1982. Only after the rail-merger did they use the name of East Rail "Line" to brand the East Rail as a metro service. It's tracks are also shared with Intercity and International services(at the time). So the whole sentence is wrong. Me, instantnood, has an idea of using the sentence " The East Rail Line was designed as a suburban railway and begun service at 1982 by electrifying and modernising a conventional railway that had operated since 1910.", which is much closer to the fact. Me, Instantnood, can understand you revert the flag problem since I'm Instantnood, but to revert something that is wrong totally confuses me, Instantnood. GB Lothian (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Ref :  KCR Pre-1975 to 1983
  History of KCR up to Corporatization in 1982

Please search the discussion and its archive, there is no need to undergo same discussion again and again. Also note, that it is totally out of scope of the article, as this is list of metro systems, not list of countries. --Jklamo (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Although me, Instantnood, is being Instantnood, but my(Instantnood) words above isn't only about the flag problem, that means you didn't actually read my(Instantnood) things at all. And I'm(Instantnood) looking to re-use the old consensus, and not new ways of representing things, which also means I have already searched the discussion and its archive. GB Lothian (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I do only note that present British overseas areas like Bermuda also have their own flag in lists, for example in List of country calling codes. And we should use the established principle and not invent a special policy just for Hong Kong in the List of metro systems. --BIL (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Quoting the MTR article: "Construction of the Modified Initial System (now part of the Kwun Tong Line and Tsuen Wan Line) commenced in November 1975. The northern section was completed on 30 September 1979 and opened on 1 October 1979. Trains on this route ran from Shek Kip Mei Station to Kwun Tong Station." So while I'm not sure what the original 'note' attached to Hong Kong's "Opening date" was trying to say (I'm guessing something along the lines of "Even though the East Line opened as a conventional railway in 1910, it wasn't a "metro" line before 1979..."), your changes to that note don't make its meaning any plainer, just more confusing, as you're focusing on what happened (later) to the East Line (which wasn't even the first "line" in the MTR metro system) when the note needs to be about why 1979 is the correct date. If someone wants to try their hand at "improving" or "fixing" that Hong Kong 'note', please feel free – because the current version is about as clear as mud in what it's trying to get across. The bottom line is that MTR did open as a Metro in 1979, as multiple sources such as attest. --IJBall (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest using the sentence "The first MTR route that began metro service in 1979 is the Modified Initial System, which consists parts of the later Tsuen Wan Line and Kwun Tong Line." GB Lothian (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to reply since nobody really answered your question. If Wikipedia existed before 1997 and the current consensus that only sovereign states be listed in the "Country" column applies, then I would group Hong Kong under the UK as the UK is a sovereign state and Hong Kong was not, and is not. But, really, what are you trying to get at? Whatever country Hong Kong was part of back in 1997 does not apply in this list. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see a new way of sustaining "consensus" is to ignore everything one said and just revert everything he did. No discussion is made and just "revert". I also like how the phrase "vast majority of editors" has been used. There's basically no difference to "Democratic" "People's" "Republic" of North Korea saying China is the second strongest country in the world right after North Korea. Having HKG flag addded constantly by people just because there are reasons, not because they have nothing to do and just go to wikipedia pages and change flags to kill time. I can see how "the vast majority of editors" constantly thinks that all the people who change/add HKG and PUR flags are just one person. And you think you win the discussion by good reasons? No, just because you are the one reverting and always just have others banned for getting reverts. No compromise, no discussions, just pure dictatorship. GB Lothian (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"I can see a new way of sustaining "consensus" is to ignore everything one said and just revert everything he did. No discussion is made and just "revert"." yep. It's called WP:DENY. And WP:BAN. Bad faith edits from sock puppets of banned editors are ignored, reverted, and not discussed at all. Period. Don't like it? Tough. Now your own edit warring (which is what one calls it when you continue to make substantially the same edits despite being reverted multiple times by three different editors) is decidedly against consensus, so don't give us any if this "dictatorship" bullcrap. We're not the one tendentiously editing to force a POV into the list despite consensus against it. No kowtowing to yet another sock of yet the same banned editor, and you can forget about just rolling over to POV-pushing, uncooperative nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You have no evidence on saying I'm a sock of a banned user. You just thinks that all the people who change/add HKG and PUR flags are just one person, which is just non-sense. So Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung are the same person, just because they both killed millions of people as well? You are just egocentric and think that you are the one who are always correct, justice and clever. It's fine as long as the revert have good reasons. But your reason to revert is because you think I'm Instantnood. Nothing but cyber-bullying and dictatorship I can see here. I can't believe such people exists here and can still say that everything against their idea is a sock puppet of a banned editor, like everyone who denies to believe in Islam is killed by ISIS. You are nothing more than an internet terrorists. I also find it funny how you written "Firstly, let me say that I think your comments such as "Cut f**king the crap", "promotional bukks**t", and other offensive language is just that, offensive, not to mention unprofessional, and completely unwarranted." on your talk page. And you just did the same "bullcrap". GB Lothian (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, you cannot bypass consensus and make whatever edits you wish to, against the current consensus. You actually need to get a consensus passed if you want to make edits that support your opinion. And if this really were some dictatorship, you would not have a chance to voice your opinion. You say that there aren't any discussions, well, just scroll up and you will see loads of discussions. There were also compromises offered, for example, allowing the HK flag next to the PRC flag on the "country" column. I have never said that you were Instanthood, so don't assume that everyone else here thinks that, just as there is more than just Instanthood who think MTR should be listed under Hong Kong. I do not believe Oknazevad's use of the word "bullcrap", is appropriate either, as it is not constructive. But just because someone else does something wrong, it does not justify your wrongdoings. You can call this a dictatorship all you like, but really, you aren't helping. However, I also have to say that some of those who agree that only sovereign states should be listed here are quite extreme. As soon as somebody proposes an opinion that differs from the perceived wisdom, they start shouting and acting like its the end of the world.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My words above does not apply to you, as you did nothing like the other 2 user does. I have expressed my points on this part of the column but it was ignored. And it's not overlapped with the discussion above. Plus in their view it's like "Oh the user was banned so whatsoever I'll just ignore you, this consensus is not changin' I tell ya'" "This discussion is started by a banned user, so everything regarding HKG/PUR flag is wrong" If I didn't start editing they will just see nothing here at all in their diseases of "selective blindness" due to the fact that they think I'm Instantnood. Just before one even does anything there's already replies of "Hi User:Instantnood. Go away. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)" "...because I'm not going to get dragged in to another Instantnood fishing expedition... --IJBall (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)" There's clear evidence that they have only got Instantnood in their eyes. Of 7.183 billion of world's population, only Instantnood wants to add the flag. I do this assumption based on clear evidence, unlike some other people did here. GB Lothian (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Unown Uzer717, you are not consensus. Make a new consensus or dare to edit. --LungZeno (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That Hong Kong is put in the country column is a international common sense. --LungZeno (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Unown Uzer7. I misunderstand. --LungZeno (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not a country and it's been established that there is no exception to be made here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The "country" concept is not state or nation. That Hong Kong is put in the country column is a international convention. I do not invent a new knowledge. --LungZeno (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not a sovereign entity. It is a part of China that has some minor levels of autonomy. It does not get special treatment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Your saying is not against international convention and the common knowledge. Here are no contradiction. --LungZeno (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Established editors here disagree with your proposal to suggest that Hong Kong gets special treatment on this page when Puerto Rico, which is in a similar geopolitical position, does not. Hong Kong is a region of China and not a sovereign state so you don't get to decide that it gets listed differently just because you want to push your nationalism on Wikipedia like these fifty other accounts operated by a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I am also a editor. Changing of an article is common. Changing and discussion forms the article. My changing is according to international convention and the common knowledge that improve the article. --LungZeno (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. All these people disagree with you saying Hong Kong is in the "Country" column. No one here cares about what you think is "international convention and the common knowledge". Hong Kong is not a sovereign state so it doesn't get a special mention.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No other one reply to me. Only you disagree me now.--LungZeno (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Look at all these other people here who have talked about it and think its' a bad idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Other people in this page do not talk about the international common practice is not better than the special practice in this article. International common practices are third party practices. The responsibility of that practice is not belong to Wikipedia. And the article will match the common knowledge about the practice more. --LungZeno (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's because other people on this page aren't Hong Kong nationalists like you who are demanding that their city be given special treatment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
At first, that's your saying, not their saying. Representing me or other people is not the way of discussion. Secondly, it is a common practice of third party what Hong Kong people see, at least me and a IP user saying. You can ask other Hong Kong people.--LungZeno (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is that this article presents the list as divided up into sovereign nations and not sovereign nations and one city that thinks it's special. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia. It is not written solely for Hongkongers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I means that I don't think that you know more than Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people should be the group of people who see and know the word "Hong Kong" at most in living. --LungZeno (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it fun how all these socks continually ignore what is written in this article's 'Legend'? File under category of: inconvenient facts! --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Now they're actively changing the legend and one of them is claiming the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act gives him the right to make these changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If the legend can not correctly show the status of Hong Kong. Why not just change the legend to something like country/region to satisfy the political correctness of those northern chinese and the Hongkongers? Zionfate (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It does show the status of Hong Kong because Hong Kong is not a country. It's a semi-autonomous sub-national region.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So, what is the importance of showing the sovereignty of PRC in this list? Zionfate (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Because the list by countries and Hong Kong is not a country.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not do the original research. If we follow international common practice, the conflict will be resolved. --LungZeno (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not original research to say that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not a sovereign nation and therefore not a country according to the rules set out on this article's legend. There is no "international common practice". Everyone considers Hong Kong part of China. The only people who don't are the Hongkongers who want to be under British rule again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I means that the special practice of the list by countries in this article is original research. The text "If you read reputable news magazines, the Economist for instance, you can tell that it is a common practice." in this page says the common practice. If you don't like the word "country", the legend can be changed to "country/region" that is like some new non-PRC non-HK website. This is a discussion and a discussion about resolving conflict. Something, e.g. "Everyone", that is only your claim, is not the way of discussion. --LungZeno (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What "special practice"? This article is providing a list of metro systems and organizing it by the sovereign nations they are found in and abbreviating "sovereign nation" to "country". Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation so it does not get special treatment. There is also no reason to expand the list to cover "regions" either. This has already been argued to death on this page and no amount of HK nationalism is going to change that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
FTR, this exchange from LungZero (and the other sock) is pretty much classic Instantnood behavior and arguments. --IJBall (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but LungZeno's had an account for more than 7 years. Coincidentally it was created while Instantnood was blocked for making socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
At first, the way you using is not the way of discussion. Secondly, this list is not a clone of an another list. If you don't like the noun phrase "special practice", I can call it that "the practice is not that the people who most usually see the phrase 'Hong Kong' see generally in third party". The practice including legend in this article can be changed to match the common practice of non-PRC non-HK third party. It also matches the two of rail system. The conflict can be solved by this way like some new website. --LungZeno (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot even understand what you are saying anymore because your English is so poor. What "special practice"? What "third party"? IJBall, was Instantnood this terrible with English? I can't even begin to address these points anymore because it makes no fucking sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
"special practice" means that it is not common (Hong Kong people know). "third party" means that someone/something is not involved in this article. --LungZeno (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm tired of typing this in two sections. No. Hongkongers don't get to say that their region should be included in a list of countries. This is a neutrally written article on mass transit systems that divides them by countries. This is not a subject where Hong Kong is special in any way to require separate recognition from China. You've been at this for years now. Find a better hobby than demanding that Hong Kong get listed separately on articles on trains.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is common. You can ask Hong Kong people. The special way in this article will make conflicts. The way some new website using is also a solution. The establishment of these ways are not claims of anyone involved in this article. It is neutral. The responsibility of the way is also transferred to who establish these ways. These ways are also convenient for readers because these ways show that they are two system of the rail. --LungZeno (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) THIS: This is not a subject where Hong Kong is special in any way to require separate recognition from China. This also answer BIL's point, upthread. There are certain topics where it makes sense to separate out Hong Kong (e.g. tax rates). This article isn't one of them. And, believe me, if there were any real "groundswell" of editor opinion to change that, we would have seen it by now. But I've been at this article for over a year now, and in that time I've seen what must be over a dozen of regular and drive-by editors who have come out against including Hong Kong separately, maybe two that were neutral or ambivalent on the subject... and just Instantnood and his manifold socks trying to overturn that consensus (and actually turning some sympathetic editors away from his cause due to his tactics). Really, there is zero evidence that this consensus is ever going to change, certainly not in the TEDIOUS way Instantnood (c.f. LungZeno) tries to go about it... --IJBall (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
At first, This topic is about metro systems. If the list is according to rail system (metro system), it will be more suitable. Similarly, the Economist use economic system. This way is that Hong Kong people see and know generally. Hong Kong people should be the group of people who see and know the word "Hong Kong" at most in living. Although, the IP user may do vandals you mentioned, his saying has points. These points are not disproved by acting of that vandals.
Secondly, I check little of the history of this article, I see not only me who did it. Those edits are not limit to this month. In this page, editor who have opinions is not only me. The consensus is being made. The term "real" "groundswell" which is like "real programmer" is not the way of discussion.
--LungZeno (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Hong Kong people think about themselves. This is listing metro systems by sovereign state and Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, nor does it require separate coverage when it comes to metro systems. You are a Chinese citizen so stop trying to advocate anything different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Same as the sentences in the user talk page [[User_talk:LungZeno]], your sentences can not prove nor disprove the sentences I had written. This way is not the way of discussion nor the way of resolving of conflict. Repeating and repeating of your political claim can not help resolving of conflict. --LungZeno (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no talking to Instantnood is there? Like all he goes on and on about is "Hong Kong is special" or "international common practice"? I'm tired of this but I will keep him from being an idiot from now on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand, why don't you just change the heading to 'Sovereign state'? Why use a ambiguous word such as 'country'? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's too long and only one banned editor has a stick up his ass about "Hong Kong" being considered a country.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Think outside the box[edit]

This is the same debate that has occurred at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, and I will suggest the same solution... why not simply remove the "Country" column completely? Then the entire debate on how to list Hong Kong goes away. Listing the country is really unimportant superfluous trivia in the context of this list article. The various cities listed are all blue-linked to articles about the city... so if someone wants to know what country the city is in, he/she can find that information by clicking the link (that's what links are for). There is no need for this article to specify what country each city is in. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is another solution. But the taking may make inconvenience. --LungZeno (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually that might cause some trouble because the list is currently ordered by country. I think the country data is useful for people that need to find out things about how many metros a country has, which one is the biggest, which one is the oldest, etc. Basically we should keep the country collum not for the information it provides but for the organization/sorting.Staglit (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But the system of rail (metro) of Hong Kong is different to that of PRC. The misleading information will attract conflict edits. --LungZeno (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Hong Kong is in China.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Same as the sentences in the user talk page [[User_talk:LungZeno]], repeating of your claim can not prove nor disprove the sentences I had written. This way is not the way of discussion nor the way of resolving of conflict. --LungZeno (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no conflict. There are accounts operated by one person who was banned disrupting these articles and you know ful well this fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are thousands of words, hundreds of sentences and many replies and edits already. Unfounded accusation is not the way of solving of conflict. --LungZeno (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This is because your constant demands that Hong Kong receive special treatment on this page or any other page do not have any basis in the English Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. It is simply your actions as a Hong Kong nationalist trying to make it so Hong Kong gets treated separately from China due to political issues arising from Hong Kong's level of autonomy. Yes, there are certain situations where Hong Kong does get mentioned separately from China. This is not one of them. This is a list of train systems around the world. There is no point to list Hong Kong separate from China on this list because there is nothing about Hong Kong that is special when it comes to public transportation, unlike other situations like freedom of press or GDP or taxes. Again, this is a list of trains. Stop obsessing over this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That is common way. You do not disprove it. You repeat and repeat to proclaim your political claim and use your claim as your support. As a Hong Kong people, Hong Kong is my home and I know Hong Kong. I see special treatment of Hong Kong, so I dare to edit the articles and provide information and solutions. But you repeatedly use non-discussion skill (e.g. representing me, other people and other pages) to reply me, so I point it out again and again. I do not refuse to yield to these skill.
If it is because of a list of train systems, then using train systems (rail systems as above) is more suitable. If it is because of "around the world", the world-level reputable news/magazines (e.g. the Economist) also commonly use this way (as above I had written), it is common way. Your claim do not disprove that.
And also, the special way will attract people to change it to common way. If you revert it to the special way, here will be conflict. Recently, the conflict happens again. Your sentences have no prove that that conflict will not happen. You just repeat your claim. It is not discussion nor resolving of conflict.
--LungZeno (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You have not given one proper reason why Hong Kong should be treated different from China on this topic other than your personal preference and your intent to interpret the meaning of "country" differently. There is nothing unique about Hong Kong's public transit that requires distinction from China. There is no conflict. Just one person with a lot of free time on his hands to obsess over the fact that his precious Hong Kong is not made to be special on this and other articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
LungZeno, I don't even understand why you (and others) are making such a big deal about this! This is an article on metros, and we are spending enoumous amounts of time arguing about a flag. If you really care about this so much bring it to another talk page or something, not one about metros. Users will understand where the MTR system is whether there is a hong kong flag or a chinese flag, because it says the name hong kong in the city columm. Please realize that you are all wasting your time arguing about this and I am wasting my time writing this. Staglit (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Because 琉竜 hold on this argument to me, and his text are not base on discussion nor resolving of conflict. I do not offend his. I feel bad. I don't like his behavior... You are right. I should ignore irrational text. I will just talk about the decision of solutions now. --LungZeno (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop humoring the banned user, Staglit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ryūlóng: Lol wut, how am I banned? You're making no sense.Staglit (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
He means LungZero, whom there's about a 95% chance is an Instantnood sock. He's not referring to you.  ;) --IJBall (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I forgot the comma earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Country" column is needed for convenience. If I want to look at the metro systems of a certain country, I can look at them at once without having to scroll up and down to find them if they were listed without "Country". If there were no "Country" column, the metro systems would be listed in alphabetical order of the cities, which I do not prefer. Having the "Country" column present allows me to look at the table with metro systems listed by country, and also allows listing by alphabetical order of cities. Taking the "Country" column away eliminates that choice. I really do not think we should go so far with this political correctness to make the list less user-friendly. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to change anything to satisfy a banned editor with too much free time on his hands to demand that Hong Kong be given recognition as a "country" on articles on public transportation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – both here, and at List of tram and light rail transit systems. --IJBall (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
NEVERMIND... it is obvious that editors here are more interested in their various forms of national pride than they are in actually resolving arguments. Carry on, and forget I even suggested a solution. (Time to take out my 10 foot pole... ) Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The only national pride here belongs to a banned user's sock puppet accounts that we are all trying to thoroughly ignore and prevent disruption on this page. Just go into the article history or look at a thread higher up on the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Your "solution" was (far worse) than the disease, for all reasons that Staglit and Unown User pointed out. In fact, your solution would have made both tables far less informational, and made them far harder to follow (esp. for low interest readers) as it would necessitate alphabetizing by city. I would have been strongly opposed to it whether or not Instantnood was causing trouble or not. --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Voice from a HongKonger[edit]

I'm a HongKonger and I heard the news from plurk. In fact it's so normal that HongKongers fill in HongKong as a country. Although it may be "political not correct", but it is necessary to distinguish HongKong and (mainland) China in the daily life. For example, if you fill in "China" but not "HongKong" at the "country" column on warranties, you may get poor service and simplified Chinese instruction guide. If you're a HongKonger, you should know that these are horriable things. So, maybe you think HongKonger should know that HongKong is not a country, but IN FACT, i mean in the NORMAL DAILY LIFE, we often say HongKong is our country. Thus, I don't think behavior of LungZeno "is sufficiently similar" to the other guy. I cannot believe Wikipedia guys use this point to ban a user. --Tvb10data (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion on plurk? And this means nothing here. The column is for sovereign states. Hong Kong has not had sovereignty from any nation in over 2000 years (part of Imperial China since 221 BC). Get over yourselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what happens if you get "poor service" when you say China as opposed to Hong Kong. We don't care anymore about this argument, and you shouldn't either.Staglit (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
what does this have to do with anything? I'm a Hong Konger and I find this push on wikipedia to say Hong Kong is it's own independent country or something really stupid. Especially on things that have nothing to do with Hong Kong being different from Mainland China. Have you seen the Mainland Chinese metro systems? They all look and operate like MTR stations.Terramorphous (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


The PCR flag is flown above the HK flag, so it seems to me that the PRC flag is the appropriate one for the table. -Nowa 16:19, August 30, 2014‎

Again, the 'Legend' for this article's list makes clear that only sovereign states are to be listed under "Country" here. So neither HKG or Puerto Rico get listed separately. That's been the overwhelming Consensus from the start, and your relevant point is just one more to add to the pile against changing that consensus. All Instantnood and his socks continue to do is drive more and more people away from the point of view that anything other than sovereign states should be listed here... --IJBall (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked LungZeno (who may not be an Instantnood sock but is collateral damage) to explain why he thinks Hong Kong should be made an exception on this page on metro systems and he instead spent a paragraph on Hong Kong nationalism and individualism. I think we're all done discussing Hong Kong on this list.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Year of last extension of NYCS[edit]

The year of the last extension of the New York City Subway is listed as 2013. This has a note "On April 4, 2013, the 1 service was extended south to the South Ferry loops to replace service to South Ferry – Whitehall Street, which was damaged in Hurricane Sandy. This is not a permanent extension, nor is this new construction."

This year has several problems with it.

  1. It is not new construction.
  2. It is not permanent.
  3. It is not an extension, it is putting an obsolete station back in service because the station that replaced it (which itself was not an extension) was flooded out.

The last real extension of the system was the IND 63rd Street Line, which opened with three new stations on October 29, 1989, or the completion of the connection the between IND 63rd Street Line and the IND Queens Boulevard Line on December 16, 2001.

The 1989 date is when the last new and non-replacement stations opened, the 2001 date is when the most recent tunneling opened that allowed greater use of existing stations.

It would be easier to be consistent with the station rule (1989), but non-station expansions, like connections between lines, or double, triple, and quad tracking can all provide better increases in service than opening new stations. Zginder 2014-08-31T02:30:19Z

Several editors around here are NYC experts, so hopefully they chime in here on this... --IJBall (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 Agree on Zginder's point, rerouting a subway service to it's old South Ferry loops terminal is not an extension. South Ferry Loops stopped service in 2009 when the new South Ferry station opened. South Ferry Loops then just sat there with no service. Fast forward 3 years to Hurricane Sandy and the new South Ferry station got flooded and was closed for rebuilding. They rerouted the 1 train to it's pre 2009 South Ferry Loops terminal. It's not like they needed to do anything to reopen the station all the infrastructure was still there, maybe apart from sweeping it up a bit from 3 years of dust.Terramorphous (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so should the date be changed to 1989 or 2001, then? --IJBall (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with the 2001 date for the reasons listed. I totally agree that the temporary reactivation of the old South Ferry loops do not constitute an extension as one usually understands the term; the new station, upon its opening, might be an extension, but borderline at best. So I think the 2001 date is the best choice. It's also the date one of the included statistics (in this case the system length) changed. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's 2009. What, the new South Ferry station isn't an extension and a new station? NYCS's definition of station is not the same as the world definition of station, so I'm changing it; 1989 was the time that the last unique station was opened, while 2001 was the time that the last completely new route was added. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: Note that I've reverted Epicgenius's recent changes, not because I have a particular objection to (or stake in) any of the dates listed, but simply because it looked bad, and because listing three different dates under the "Last expansion" column decidedly seems like overkill. My suggestion is to pick one of those three suggested dates, and put all of the other information in to a single 'note' attached to the chosen date for NYC Subway's "Last expansion"... --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, how about 2009? That was the most recent date that the MTA opened a new station and tunnel. (Again, the MTA classifies stations differently from the rest of the world, so it counts 468 stations, while in other locations, the same system would be counted as having 421 stations.) I agree with having a note, though, but it won't really matter because the note will only be temporary; the 7 Subway Extension is opening soon. Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly the MTA classifies stations differently, meaning we need to use a common standard. The standard says that the new station is a replacement and not new service. This can be seen from the fact that it has the same or similar name to the old station. The old station was closed when the new one opened and when the new station was damaged the old one reopened. I think 2001 is the most reasonable answer until the 7 Subway opens its new station any year now. Zginder 2014-09-16T00:41:27Z
More like any day now that the 7 extension will open, given that the MTA tends to change service patterns with only a few days' notice, but 2001 is okay. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why the date for the opening of the PATCO Speedline is listed here as 1936, instead of 1969? Because, based on this – [36], and the PATCO Speedline article, it really seems like the opening should be dated to 1969... --IJBall (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably a reference to the opening date of the Bridge Line, the predecessor to PATCO. Basically, the moden PATCO line was created by taking the existing branch of the Broad Street Line over the Ben Franklin Bridge, the Locust Street Subway (which had bee served off the Broad-Ridge Spur) and some commuter rail tracks out to Lindenwold, NJ, and forming it into one line. That service began in 1968, but the Bridge Line and Locust St Subway have seen continuous metro operation since 1936; the Lindenwold portion is really an extension of an previously existing line. In some ways it makes sense to list the 1936 date here; other systems that have changed operators are dated from when the line(s) opened, not the current operators' takeovers, like New York and London. oknazevad (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll work up a 'note' about the Bridge Line so that this is clear.... --IJBall (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


The legend describes the various columns. I think several may need work.

Year of Last Extension: I think this should read something to the effect of:

"The last time the system length or number of stations of the metro was permanently extended."

I think this is useful for several reasons.

  1. As discussed up in Year of last extension of NYCS adding stations is an as important or more important factor then lengthening the routes. Also, the dates the stations opened are much easier to find than the dates some piece of track was added.
  2. The extension must be permanent. The third least recently extended system according to this present article is the Staten Island Railway. It was last extended in 1925, the year it open as a metro, meaning never. However, a new station, Richmond County Bank Ballpark, on "new" track was opened in 2001. The station closed in 2010. I agree that the system in effect has never been permanently extended, but according to the current definition of an extension, the date should be 2001.
  3. The number of stations is important as it excludes replacing one station with another, which is not in and of itself an extension.

Ridership: I have a problem with how this article, and every other source, makes it seem as if billions of individuals are using the busier systems. Some people are using the system 1000 times a year! Therefore, I suggest,

"The number of legal entries into the system every year. Some systems count transferring between lines as multiple entries, but others do not."

Zginder 2014-09-16T00:57:33Z

For the "entries", the table actually means how many times the turnstiles in the system are swiped in a year. There is no definite way of counting otherwise. I suggest that "Ridership" be changed to "Usage", therefore. Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For "Ridership", it would rather suggest something along the lines of, "The number of unique journeys on the system every year. Some systems count transferring between lines as multiple journeys, but others do not." I would oppose renaming it as "Usage", as "Ridership" is a generally understood term whereas I'm not sure what "Usage" means. On "Extensions", the problem with the proposed definition is that it would include even "infill" stations, and I don't think it's meant to include those. --IJBall (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Number of rides", then? It may bee too long. "Ridership" is probably OK. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with IJBall about "Ridership", and strongly disagree with the term 'legal' being used; even if someone doesn't pay they are still using the system, that is why Melbourne counts fare evaders in patronage statistics. Regarding Year of Last Extension I think it should be something along the lines of: the year that a line was extended, or in-fill infrastructure that permits new services was opened. That covers new tunnels that connect existing tunnels together (with or without a station connected) and permits a new service to open, or an extension of an existing service, but it doesn't include in-fill stations (I don't consider an in-fill station to be a real extension, especially if it replaces another station. I also think it's irrelevant if an extension (such as the example given) closes or not; an extension to the system was still made, and the fact it later closed could be dealt with in a note. Liamdavies (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "Last expansion"? This also covers infill stations and the like. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just not convinced that an in-fill station counts as an extension; would you say that the Werribee railway line was last extended in 2013 when the Williams Landing railway station was opened? And given that, there may be metros in the list that have had stations built, but not been extended, meaning that changing the title necessitates going through and checking them all for when the last station was opened. I reckon that the stricter term now in use is probably the better one; and extension to a line, or infrastructure that facilitates a new service to enter operation. But, as a pretty much retired editors (I just lurk from time to time and give some input around these lists now days), my opinions probably don't hold much weight as far as consensus goes; consider them more musings than comments about building consensus. Liamdavies (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be considered an expansion, not an extension. Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
EC: To Liamdavies: Infill stations would be included in my proposal, but not replacement stations. The number of stations would not change. Zginder 2014-09-16T16:38:17Z

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There's five ways that a metro system can change, listed below. The real question is whether or not those changes are significant enough to constitute an expansion that needs to be noted in that column (which should be called "Year of last expansion", as not every expansion of a system is an extension of it's system length).

  • Extension – where a new line is built, or an existing line's length is increased, with new stations added. For example, the recent opening if the Washington Metro's Silver Line. Both the system length and number of stations increase. I think we can all agree that this belongs.
  • Connection – where new tracks are built between two or more existing lines. There may be stations on the new tracks, but there might not be. Either way, the track length increases and new service patterns are created. For example, the connection between the 63rd Street Line and the Queens Boulevard Line in New York. These should be included, even if there's no new stations, as the system length increases.
  • Infill stations – where a new station is built between existing stations along an existing line. The New York Ave station in Washington's Red Line, for example. I do think these should count as expansions, because, firstly, the number of stations has increased, and secondly, because new stations draw new ridership.
  • Replacement station – where a station is directly replaced with a new station, often of the same name. Like South Ferry in New York. As these are more modification if existing infrastructure to address issues with outdated design, they don't really add to either station count or system length, and need not be included as expansions. (indeed, a replacement station may serve to consolidate multiple older stations, and would reduce the number of stations, as is planned on Staten Island)
  • Service pattern changes – where a new service pattern is introduced using existing infrastructure only. For example, Chicago's Pink Line. Other than printing new maps and hanging some new signs, these can be done easily, and do not constitute a meaningful expansion.

So, to sum up my views, we should rename the column "Year of last expansion", and infill stations should count, as they increase one of the main statistics given, the number of stations. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. There are at least two other ways a system can change. 1. The system can be reduced in size by closing stations, or lines. 2. The routes can be moved to shorten or length the trips without changing the number of stations or service patterns. I think that reductions should not count as extensions. I also think that any extension that is completely rolled back (Staten Island) should not count. I think that a lengthening of the system to move tracks underground or out of an urban area and result in longer trips times should be excluded. (I do not have an example in metros, but this has been done in commuter rail.)
To Liamdavies, most new systems are built in stages. Usually the length of the system increases after each stage, but what if a system was built end to end with only two stations first because that was the largest market. In the later stages, in-fill stations were added. Are these stations not expansions? Zginder 2014-09-16T17:57:09Z
1. Reductions, by definition, are not expansions. 2. Lengthening subway lines should count as expansions. In-fill stations are expansions, not extensions. How about modifications? That can be a common group. That way, extensions, connections, infill and replacement stations, and reductions can all count. The Staten Island Railway Arthur Kill Station, for example, is a modification but not an expansion or an extension, because two other stations would close. Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually wasn't thinking about reductions/contractions in my write-up, but both of you make a good point about that. "Modification" is a little broad of a term, though, as renovations, new rolling stock, and other such things could be considered "modifications", but none of them are the major sort of thing that changes the main stats. And I'm not sure that replacement stations should count, either; that was the thing behind the above discussion of the NYC Subway's date, after all, and there was pretty good consensus that that didn't count. Again, I think the date listed should be the last time one of the infrastructure stats changed, as those are really the main factors that affect the system's ridership and reach. oknazevad (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@oknazevad: How about "route modifications"? This will only cover route modifications. (However, this will cause a bit of a problem with NYC Subway, Taipei Metro, etc. where routes and lines are different.) Or "line modifications", which will be better, as it only covers the physical mileage. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh, as you say, it is a problem for some systems, and it leaves out infill stations (which involve no change in route, just stopping patterns). Maybe we should just make it "last change", with the explanation of what that means in the legend. oknazevad (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's far too broad. That would include a whole heap of small things such as station renovations, extra platforms, and track amplification that most people wouldn't consider an extension or expansion. As far as I'm concerned only new tracks (in a location that was previously devoid of passengers carrying tracks) that carry trains with passengers should count. If a services footprint doesn't expand then the system hasn't expanded; an in-fill station is just too small a difference in the scheme of a line, let alone a system. Liamdavies (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to have to disagree. Infill stations change a key statistic of a system, one we already consider major enough to list here. And I think you may have missed the part where I said that the legend would explain that those sorts of minor changes wouldn't be included.oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much of a stake in this one, but if the consensus is to include infill stations, then I'd change the column heading to "Year of last expansion" – that seems like it would include what other editors want, without extending it to include maintenance-type work.

Ridership's legend, OTOH, should be changed to what I suggested above: "The number of unique journeys on the system every year. Some systems count transferring between lines as multiple journeys, but others do not." It can't really say "riders", because APTA, for instance, is counting "unlinked passenger trips" which may include one rider traveling on two (or more) lines with one (or more) transfers during a single day. If no one objects, I'll probably revise the legend to that one soon. --IJBall (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Let's change the column header ASAP. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done for both changing the column heading to "Year of last expansion", and the legend text accompanying "Ridership", though other editors can make any copyedits to those that they see fit. --IJBall (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014[edit]

Please Change the Delhi Metro system length from 190.0 km to 192.81 km. A new extension of the violet line of the Delhi Metro was opened on 26 june 2014, increasing the total system length of Delhi Metro from 190.0 km to 192.81 km. So kindly, i request you to change it Rockingshiv93 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep - I've asked for such a reference over at the Delhi Metro article, and so far no one has been able to provide a source that wasn't a SYNTH... --IJBall (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Delhi Metro Image[edit]

First,why there is no image of delhi metro on this page despite it has won many awards for environmentally friendly practices from organisations including the United Nations,RINA,and the International Organization for Standardization.Because for a metro system to be environmentally friendly must be a priority in todays world.And we should appriatate those metro systems which are doing well & wining awards in this.Second,may i know why images of Shanghai Metro and Beijing Subway are there on the top of this page?what are qualification for a image to be displayed on this page? Deshwal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We're doing the systems with the most riders a year(Beijing), the one with the most stations(New York), the longest one(shanghai) and the oldest one(london). However you can always discuss this. Staglit 13:24, September 21, 2014‎ (UTC)
Also, in addition to what Staglit said, this article is very finicky, and anything more than four images at the top of article can mess up the presentation of the table (by "squishing it") on some computer monitors. Therefore, the consensus is to go with the "four superlatives", and put no other images here. After all, this article (and Wikipedia in general) is not an image gallery. As to your specific addition, it came off as not NPOV, and it's difficult to quantify "most environmentally friendly" metro (i.e. it's arguable that it's Delhi's). --IJBall (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

pécs metro[edit]

I can put on the list because there that dead is planned for metro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbera levente (talkcontribs) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are saying or asking for here – can you please explain what you mean?... --IJBall (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No Mention of Newcastle Metro[edit]

As much as I thoroughly enjoyed reading up on your almost comprehensive least of world metro systems, I couldn't help but notice the absence of the Newcastle Metro. Or rather, if it is there, I did not see it in the UK section and I have no idea where else it would be. Below is proof of the existence of Newcastle Metro, not because I am being facetious but because I just want to be explicit. Newcastle Metro does exist, it is wonderful and I used it for three good years while at university there: [37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 08:59, September 28, 2014

The Tyne & Wear Metro is an unusual hybrid system, but it is not considered to be a "metro" by organizations like UITP and LRTA. Instead it is light rail (and is considered so by the UK's Department for Transport), and is covered at the List of tram and light rail transit systems and the Medium-capacity rail transport system articles rather than here. --IJBall (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)