Talk:Rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Rapid transit was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Remove pictures with pixelated faces[edit]

Some pictures have pixelated faces and I propose to remove such pictures or replace them with other pictures that don't have pixelation. It is wrong to pixelate people's faces in public places and accept such photos in an encyclopedia, it's anti-journalistic. Mark Urzimo (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Topographies[edit]

I wish to add the Vancouver Skytrain to the topographies but I don't know where it fits in. Can anyone help me think of where? Cganuelas (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde's konfusion[edit]

Rapid transit, also known as heavy rail, metro, subway, tube, or underground, is a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas.[1][2][3] Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort,[4] and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways.

The citations that are included above are contradictory. The first is a very vague definition - and comes from a dictionary instead of an expert source. The second is a dead link. The third claims motorbuses can be rapid transit (the article says they can't). The fourth is another dictionary definition that says rapid transit is a "system of railways".

Monorails and maglevs are not conventional railways. This article mostly covers the segregated, urban form of conventional railway technology. But it also briefly mentions quite different technologies and claims they also fall under the same banner. It is entirely appropriate to request citations from reliable sources to show whether these are truly considered rapid transit systems by the public transport industry. The citations provided certainly can't make up their mind. Again, why revert when you acknowledge you don't understand my edits? 202.159.191.219 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't explain your edits, or what should be cited. "Article scope and terminology requires clarification" does not identify what needs to be clarified, and reflects wider issue with wikipedia and the varying definitions (particularly US vs European) of varying rail types. I directed you to WP:CITENEED and in particular the section on "When not to use this tag" is very relevant to what you have typed above. If you know about the subject, then provide additional sources that can expand and improve the page. Just tagging "CN" improves nothing.
There is no universal standard for the definition "Rapid transit". It overlaps several other commonly used terms, some of which is listed at Passenger rail terminology, and its US definition often depends on the decade of publishing and source. Indian sources, Asian sources, European sources etc tend to have significant variations - this is usually because the US sources have a very narrow experience and viewpoint of rail and talks from practical examples within its own boundaries.
It's most easily/lazily summarised by several encyclopedia / and dictionary as simply "a form of high-speed urban passenger transport" or similar, but that leaves out a lot of the qualifying criteria that other sources believe are fundamental. Some include the term "electric", others state that it is "urban", some say "rail" others include "motorbus" also, then there's the sources that only say elevated or subway, where others such as the University of Nottingham in the UK (where we really don't recognise the US definitions for rail) lists "Mass Rapid Transit" (another overlapping phrase) as a "generic term used to describe modern urban public transport systems; these can range from a painted bus lane to extensive underground train networks." Koncorde (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've copied much of the above into the article lead. Who would have thought that such a wide-ranging article would have such abysmal coverage of all non-metro/subway types of "rapid transit"?202.159.135.8 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes no sense to quote my informal paraphrasing. Koncorde (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not?

You state that the article covers rapid transit in a broader sense than just metros/subways and then object to an edit that seeks to clarify this. Your claim that the edit - to the lead, no less - isn't cited sufficiently is wonderfully ironic!202.159.135.8 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My comments are not cited by any source anywhere within the document as they are my comments only for the purpose of demonstrating that this article reflects several viewpoints, rather than a singular definition, as a response to you. Koncorde (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And, as pointed out, the coverage of all non-metro/subway types of rapid transit is abysmal. My edit today clarifies that the ”article reflects several viewpoints". The article previously stated "Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways...", yet provided a citation which explicitly stated that rapid transit could encompass motorbuses! 202.159.135.8 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Badly. You can vandalise and introduce dross to your heart's content, I am removing this page from my watch list. Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)