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.

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: [1]. 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)
I hate to do this, especially as it directly contradicts what I argued above. But, if UITP are to be treated as the authoritative source on this matter, which it appears is the case, both Valencia, and Seville (which I only recently argued should be excluded) need to be added. They both appear on the map of 'metro systems around the world', published by the UITP here (on this page). I'm sure there are more inconsistencies to be found, and they too will have to be dealt with. Liamdavies (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
While I think the UITP reference should be considered "authoritative", I don't think it should be considered 100% "definitive" on this question – that reference is good, but it is objectively questionable with a few systems: Metrovalencia is Exhibit A, as it is a hybrid system that contains tram and commuter rail sections, in addition underground sections, and I don't see how it can be considered "metro" without some further explanation on the matter. (Put another way: if Metrovalencia is a "metro", then so are Tyne & Wear Metro and Frankfurt U-Bahn). A few other systems included in that list, e.g. esp. the Spanish systems like Seville and Palma, violate UITP's own broader definition that metros must have "high passenger capacities" (with >30,000 PPHPD). This why I've been trying to use the UITP reference in concert with the list to decide what truly qualifies as a "full metro". It would really be helpful if UITP had individual pages on each system, like does, because I'd really like to see some broader explanations on why they're including what they're including. In any case, the way I've been using the UITP ref is this way: if a system's not listed there, then it's definitely out here. --IJBall (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case many more may need to be removed. Fortaleza Metro and Salvador Metro in Brazil; Chennai MRTS, Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon, and Mumbai Metro in India; and Panama Metro are included in the list, but not on the UITP map. Should they also be removed? Liamdavies (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing to remember: there are a number of systems that are not included in the UITP reference, because they opened just recently (i.e. since 2012). That includes Panama, Mumbai and Salvador, for sure, and possibly Fortaleza (though Foraleza may be another one that's a "light metro" – I'll try to check on that...). Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon is in Delhi IIRC, so it wouldn't show up separately on the UITP map ref. Point taken on Chennai, though – I was uncomfortable when that one was added, but couldn't find a reason to exclude it; I suspect that the Chennai MRTS system falls under UITP's "suburban railway" exclusion. If there are no objections proffered, I will delete the Chennai MRTS system soon... --IJBall (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: OK, I've verified that Fortaleza Metro doesn't cut it as a "metro" (27-minute frequencies aren't even close to cutting it). So I will now cut both it and Chennai MRTS from the list. --IJBall (talk) 18:18, 11 October 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 – [2], 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: [3] — 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)

S-Bahn/Train ?[edit]

Where have the S-Bahn of Hamburg, S-Bahn of Berlin and S-train of Copenhagen gone ? All these system fulfill the conciderations.

  1. urban transport (not more suburban than many system that label themselves as "metro")
  2. departures every 10th or 5th minute each direction and per line
  3. same time tables in the middle of the day, as at peak hours
  4. no crossings with roads or for passengers
  5. stand alone tracks and separated trafic
  6. low average distance between stations

This has been discussed before - and a consensus found to include these. There are other S-bahn/train system that doesn't fulfill the conciderations. Like S-Bahn in Rostock, which uses common tracksa (partly atleast) and 30 minutes between departures. Which conciderations are not fulfilled in these three cases ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has changed - our primary UITP reference specifically excludes such systems from consideration as "metros". So we're following the references on this now. --IJBall (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and Hamburg S-Bahn actually never did qualify (from its article: "...31.9 km are shared with regional and cargo traffic..." – track-sharing has always been a no-no), and should never have been included in the first place. --IJBall (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Within the State of Hamburg , S-Bahn is indeed metro. The part You refer to didn't belong to Hambyrg but to State of Lower Saxony. I has been setteled, I believe. Though several chineze metro system also appears on the list of Trams. There ha yet been found no consensus, regarding excluding of some S-Bahn/train system, as You ought to know, IJBall Boeing720 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We had a consensus about S-Systems in Hamburg, Berlin and Copenhagen here before - as metro Please show me exact URL to UITP webbpage that excludes S-System in Hamburg, Berlin and Copenhagen as "not metro". Some S-Bahns are not metro, but others are. We had a consensus. Very much more doubtful ar "metro system" with one short line only, or 20-30 minutes beween departures during day time. Boeing720 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that I had to revert you for the second time. Please stop re-adding info until the consensus has been reached here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but there pretty much is already consensus here on this. Most of the editors around here have always been uncomfortable with including any S-Bahn systems in the list – the issue has been debated several times in the Talk archives. The previous consensus was to include only those S-Bahn systems that fully fulfilled "metro considerations" – realistically, that only includes Berlin's S-Bahn. The kind of "slicing" that Boeing720 wants to do just to include Munich's S-Bahn and Copenhagen's S-train is exactly why many of this article's regular editors don't want to include S-Bahn systems. Basically, it should have been: either the whole system meets "metro standards" or it's out. The difference between then and now is we now have a reference from UITP that explicitly excludes any "S-Bahn" or RER -type system (including Berlin's). Which is why Boeing720 is trying to get that UITP reference tossed as "not a reliable source". However, there has been no support for the position that UITP is not a "reliable source" from any quarter (even from editors who aren't regulars at this article) at the RS noticeboard, so we should continue to use it, and exclude the problematic S-Bahn-type systems from this list. That is the best solution, and the position that currently holds the consensus here. --IJBall (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Silence me ? Please don't get personal. Sources is needed, thats it! To IJBall (or anyone else) could You please give me the excact URL to the UITP page that disqualifies S-systems in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen as Metro? These systems have preaviously been well-sourcered as fulfilling all conciderations. With a minor problem for Hamburg, that now I believe is solved. If You ever have the possibility to visit any of these three cities, You will notice the only difference towards U-Bahn/Metro is at a few larger stations, where the S-platforms are parallell to "common platforms" , while U-bahn/Metro aren't. But this isn't a concideration. If there now is a specific UITP page that clearly exclude S-systems, please just give me the URL to that page. I believe it may say "S-Bahns in general are not Metro" or something like that, since there are a number of S-Bahns in Germany that typically share tracks with other trains. But this isn't the case in Berlin and Copenhagen, and if still a minor part of Hamburg S-Bahn shares tracks with regional trains , in a different state, this part should be deducted only. Further several Chineze Metros are also listed at list of trams. I have never included Munich by the way. Perhaps You confuse it with Vienna ? In Vienna the S-Bahn fulfills all but one conciderations. In Vienna old city centre S-Bahn lines and stations have now become parts of the U-Bahn. So nowadays Vienna S-Bahn works as a kind of Suburban rail and shouldn't be included. But this is far from the case in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen. Here a vast number of the stations are located within the city centre or urban area, and are widely used for inter-same-city-transport, without track sharing, 5 or 10 minutes between each departure for each line, also during the mid day. Even though Berlin S-Bahn reaches Potsdam, that city is today build together with Berlin. So is also the case with the longest S-line in Copenhagen. The urban area stretches all along Køge Bugt (Bay of Køge) all the way to Køge south of Copenhagen. (Just use This line was constructed in several stages and prolonged as the urban area grew. The fact S-systems partly use old local train tracks isn't a concideration. (And if so several other listed metros should go, Oslo for one, as 95% of the T-bane net uses old suburban-local tracks) This is also the case for some of London's Tube lines. What's the point of having this list, if we do not use the same conciderations for all metro system ? [And is one single line a system, just by the way] ? I strongly fear IJBall [who in many other ways have made good contributions to this list] tend to discriminate older systems, especially in cities where there are more than one system. Boeing720 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
In response to your question about the source: "Suburban railways (such as the Paris RER, the Berlin S-Bahn and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport express line) are not included." From here, as seen in the last archive, where the most recent discussions are located. Remember consensus can change, and in this case did. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe text could be added to the Considerations saying that although commuter rail systems in many cities fulfil some or all criteria for being a metro, they are excluded from this list as they are classified as suburban/commuter railways; the UITP explicitly exclude suburban railways. It would probably also be worth mentioning, or linking to the systems whose intensity are on a par with metro systems, such as Germanic S-Bahn systems, the Parisian RER, and in major Australian, North American, and UK cities. This gives mention to many of these rail systems that fulfil the same functions as metros, and share many attributes, but which simply don't meet all the criteria. It might also reduce the frequency of people trying to add commuter systems, and associated discussions as to why they are not included in the list. Liamdavies (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's on my 'To Do' list to rewrite that section (actually, it'll likely be a synthesis of the old version from 2013 with the present version, and updated), but I'm so busy right now that I won't get to that for months. So if someone wants to add such a sentence to the 'Considerations' now, they have my blessing, at least... --IJBall (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sydney North West Rail Link[edit]

To echo sentiments of others on this page, the comprehensiveness of this page is impressive. However, I find it difficult to shake the feeling that some proposed rapid transit systems are missing from the "under construction" portion. Sydney's North West Rail Link is slated for a 2019 opening date and satisfies every qualification for heavy-rail rapid-transit.

If anyone would be so kind to add it, the start of construction is 2014 and the planned opening is 2019

The route is also grade-separated, even by Wikipedia's North West Rail Link page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This system has had a heterogeneous background, which is why there has been resistance to including it. Essentially, I think some of us want an authoritative secondary source like UITP to categorize it as a "true metro" system before including it. --IJBall (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014[edit]

Currently constructing a second line of Metro in Rennes, France - (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Under construction" section is only for entirely new systems. It doesn't cover new "lines" of existing systems. --IJBall (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update for Tehran Metro's Annual Ridership[edit]

Please change annual ridership of Tehran metro from 568(FY 2012) to 633(FY 2013) here's "1391-Statistics and Information-City and Municipality of Tehran/Year 2012-Indicators of Tehran Municipality-Transportation and Traffic". (in Persian).,-61,571 Shaater (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

New Athos Cave[edit]

New Athos Cave has also an underground railway, which should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all "underground railways" qualify as "metros". Considering this system's length, and location, I'm nearly certain it operates as a "tourist tram" (with relatively low frequencies), not as a public transit "metro" system. --IJBall (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, it is not a metro.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia[edit]

Metro system is under construction in Ethiopia.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The Addis Ababa Light Rail system is light rail, not rapid transit, as even your provided reference makes clear (though I'm not sure why the reference includes "monorail" in the title, as the system does not appear to be monorail but traditional rail) – so it is included over in the List of tram and light rail transit systems. --IJBall (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cairo Metro[edit]

Are you sure about annual ridership of Cairo Metro? It's source seems more like a prospect. Shaater (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly? – No. With foreign-language references, we're relying on editors who can read that language to tell us what in it. That particular reference always seemed... unclear to me. So, no idea if the ridership figures contained within are actual ridership figures, or ridership projections... --IJBall (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
We need ar speaker to solve this. From archive i can see same version in March 2012, so everything from 2011/2012 (or even 2010/2011) is projection and not actual ridership. --Jklamo (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think so. If you click on the next page of that diagram, It shows annual ridership statistics of Cairo Metro until 2009/2010 and chart that cited in reference is prospect of future years.(I understand Arabic a little) Shaater (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it sounds like we should roll the Cairo Metro ridership figure back to that FY2010 value, until somebody can come up with a more reliable up-to-date reference for ridership on Cairo's Metro. Can you provide the exact URL you are referring to when you say "If you click on the next page of that diagram"... Thanks. Nevermind - I figured it out! --IJBall (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Shaater (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)