Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleTaiwan High Speed Rail has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
November 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
February 3, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 11, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Trains (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYK July 13, 2006
Sel week 39, 2007
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
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Core technology/system[edit]

In revision 287890573, Will74205 again removed a qualification of the THSR's Shinkansen origins as one pertaining to the core technology, citing bad grammar on my part. My grammar may be bad, but what's Shinkansen-based about the THSR is only the (majority of) the core system (main parts & basic standards for trains + track + superstructure) -- not the operation, not the business model, not specific subsystems.

As for some examples of usage with "core", I dug up a Japan Railway & Transport Review article (f.e. " Finally, the Japanese core system was selected, because the conditions proposed by the Japanese suppliers were best.", "As mentioned, although the core system is basically Japanese, a number of significant modifications have been made and some subsystems used in Europe have also been adopted.") and a Japan Times article ("Taiwan High Speed Rail in 2000 contracted Taiwan Shinkansen Engineering, a consortium of seven Japanese firms, to provide and maintain the core technology for the bullet-train network"). The article's formulation should be changed into something based on these. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really understand what you think is the difference. "Based on" means just that: some parts, maybe even quite a few parts, may have been changed, but the core is the same. Perhaps "The THSR is technologically based on..." would be better? Jpatokal (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Can someone cite actual sources on what arguments Taiwanese authorities used to explain why they have chosen the Japanese offer and rejected Eurotrain in the end?

One of the two reasons currently named in the article is spurious, given that (1) the loss of the contract came as a surprise for preferred bidders Eurotrain more than a year after Eschede, (2) as well known by the end of 1999, the Eschede disaster was caused by a design deficiency of ICE 1 wheels, which did not affect the ICE 2 and SNCF TGV Duplex trains forming the basis of the Eurotrain; (3) the Eschede disaster happened on a conventional line, involving a switch and a bridge with designs not present on high-speed lines. It is possible that THSRC decisionmakers did not voice their doubts to Eurotrain and were clueless about points 2 and 3, and thus that Eschede really played a role as the article currently claims; but an actual source with a reference to the Eschede disaster would be needed here as evidence. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now dug up the history of the awarding controversy, resulting in a major re-work of the History and Controversy sections. (I also found the likely source of the above criticised claim: rhetoric about the Eurostar offer being "burdened by the still vivid memories" of the Eschede crash in a book written by the pro-Japanese then President eight months prior to THSRC's decision.) The latter got rather long -- maybe I should separate it out into a separate article, with a short summary in the main article? --Rontombontom (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some trains will stop at no stations"[edit]

ummm... somehow I don't think this is quite correct. I assume the writer was trying to say that said trains will be direct ones with no intermediate stops. Could someone confirm this and change things accordingly? Tompw 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[1] says something about nearly 20 billion USD ... It seems to have been officially opened now. JensMueller 16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Is one train line a "network"? JensMueller 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a warp thread or a spine. Jjok 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


"It is alleged because Shinkansen have been adopting earthquake detection system called UrEDAS (Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System) since 1992." Alleged usually implies a suggestion or implication that somebody has done something wrong. If the rationale for dropping ICE and going with Shinkansen technology is correct, then THSRC's decision appears to be a wise one. Another word should be used here, and the sentence is really a fragment. 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing map[edit]

The map currently says "In service until 2011", which gives exactly the wrong impression: it should be (for example) "Scheduled to open by 2011". Jpatokal 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal opening?[edit]

When was the railway formally opened with the full operating schedule? At the same time as Taipei station? Jpatokal 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares?[edit]

Currently, tickets have all the information printed on them that is needed to ride the trains, but they do not have an imprinted logo or the words "Taiwan High Speed Rail" printed on them in Chinese or English. However, this will be corrected by the HSR marketing department as soon as possible, with new HSR tickets sporting the company's logo.

Who cares whether the tickets have "Taiwan High Speed Rail" printed on them in Chinese, English, or anything else? In the unlikely event it does matter, the statement should be sourced. 00:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Jpatokal 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Taoyuan airport link[edit]

"Some of the same Japanese companies won another project in December 2005 to build a high speed rail link to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, with the exception of the signaling system which has been awarded to Westinghouse Rail Systems."

Any info about the schedule? I saw a construction fence and a sign mentioning some government authority on Taoyuan airport last Sunday. -- (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It mentioned "Director General of Bureau of Taiwan High Speed Rail of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications", so it might also be related to the MRT system. -- (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Clicky clicky -- this is already linked in from the article: Taoyuan International Airport Access MRT System Jpatokal (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Table cleanup[edit]

The timetable/trains per day, ridership, and revenue tables are starting to get to be too much. I propose reducing them down to per year (instead of per month). Not sure how that will work with the timetable/trains per day table, but it shouldn't be a problem for the other two. -Multivariable (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Methinks if a reader wants to see the trends, at least for ridership, it's too early for going to years. But, maybe the table could be replaced by a diagram. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess ridership would be fine to keep, but trends for revenue don't really add much at a monthly level unless it's compared to ridership somehow. The trains per day table, though, could definitely be converted into a diagram since the dates aren't evenly spaced anyway. -Multivariable (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have now created a THSRC ridership.png and a THSRC ridership daily.png diagram, and moved the monthly ridership table to the sources section on those two pages. I can update the diagrams every month. I embedded only the second in the article, and condensed the annual data into a table. I also converted the paragraph on ridership landmarks (10 millionth... 100 millionth) into a table.
I also improved the Revenue section text, and added the annual balance sheets (based on the annual reports themselves rather than secondary news reports). After much thinking, I removed the monthly revenues table, which, for the record, I reproduce below in its final form without edits:
2007 2008 2009 2010
January NT$ 599.263 million NT$1,550.991 million[1] NT$2,230.886 million[2] NT$2,060.422 million[3]
February NT$ 669.273 million NT$1,728.569 million NT$1,735.106 million NT$2,328.338 million[citation needed]
March NT$867.659 million[1] NT$1,903.876 million[1] NT$1,908.816 million NT$2,015.350 million[citation needed]
April NT$1,030.259 million NT$2,100 million NT$1,856.083 million NT$2,213.826 million[citation needed]
May NT$1,078.242 million[4] NT$1,903.502 million NT$2,040.365 million
June NT$1,135.954 million NT$1,875.924 million NT$1,736.616 million
July NT$1,282.161 million NT$2,038.358 million[5] NT$2,091,261 million
August NT$1,259.984 million NT$2,168.552 million NT$1,841.884 million
September NT$1,268.284 million NT$1,816.059 million NT$1,718.129 million
October NT$1,320.430 million NT$2,109.892 million NT$2,024.968 million
November NT$1,413.973 million NT$2,028.733 million NT$2,029.018 million
December NT$1,578.305 million NT$1,991.578 million NT$2,110.578 million
Total NT$13.96924 billion NT$23.047583 billion NT$23.323710 billion
My rationales for removal: on one hand, as Multivariable wrote, it was getting too much and added little. On the other hand, whoever it was who kept adding the data, usually did so without giving a source. What's more, I hazard to guess that the source was the one given for January 2010, a site with financial reports of corporations; but that site doesn't seem to include data on THSRC anymore (the possible reason the table wasn't updated beyond April). --Rontombontom (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to clean up the tables and creating graphs. It's a lot less cluttered now; great work! -Multivariable (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
<bows> I forgot to note: I don't think that converting the trains per day table into a diagram would be a good idea. Such a diagram would strongly suggest a constant level, whereas the numbers shown are the maximums on a normal week. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
While I was hunting for replacements for dead links, I decided to assemble a more thorough train frequency table, and use the data to create a proper train frequency diagram after all -- now included in the article. I of course migrated the table to the diagram's Commons page, and put a much shorter table in its place in the article. As for lesser cleanups, there is one point I wasn't sure about: is the time format in "6:00 AM to 12:00 midnight" acceptable? That format is neither the one used in the source article, nor one in line with UIC convention and THSRC usage (which would be 06:00 to 24:00). --Rontombontom (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"12 midnight" make sense, but I think "12 AM" or "24:00" is more proper. Even just "midnight" is better, imo. Plus, the latter ones take up less space. :) -Multivariable (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c "台灣高鐵公司自去(2007)年元月5日通車營運至今,搭乘人數及公司營收屢創新高,累計旅運人次即將突破台灣地區人口數─2,300萬人,3月份的單月營收達19億多元,亦創新高。" (in Chinese). THSRC. 11 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference refin09thsrc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ (in Chinese)  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ "THSRC loan stalled on Chinese fund concerns". Taipei Times. 18 July 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  5. ^ "台灣高鐵營運服務再傳捷報!高鐵2008年票箱收入超越2007全年,7月單月營收亦再創歷史新高。" (in Chinese). THSRC. 12 August 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 

Technical issues, incidents and accidents[edit]

In an edit war over at the Korea Train Express page, the lack of a section in the THSR article as per above was noted. Irrespective of the fact that this is no argument in that debate, it just happens that I was mulling over creating such a section, on the occasion of the switch troubles in August and the derailment and ensuing early warning system controversy after the earthquake in March this year. But, listing just these two would likely be an incomplete list; so, does anyone have sources on eventual earlier accidents or technical issues? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think You should inserted Technical issues, incidents and accidents at Taiwan High Speed Rail page. Ssyublyn (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is the intersting source.
"The system has become so complex that the leader of Taiwan’s consumer movement is calling for citizens to boycott it entirely until extensive safety data is released. “Cherish your life, don’t be a guinea pig,” Cheng Jen-hung, the chairman of the Consumers’ Foundation, said in an interview, repeating his group’s slogan. With 900 passengers on a fully loaded train, he warned, “if there is an accident, there will be very heavy casualties."[2] Why this kind of technical issue is not included in here? Ssyublyn (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Because Mr Cheng is stating the obvious, and because such an accident has not actually happened yet? Jpatokal (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not even obvious: for example, from what I know, all high-speed train derailments on actual high-speed rail lines were accidents with zero fatalities. Trains aren't airplanes. Other than that, Mr. Cheng doesn't make any technical argument, and the appeal to the number of passengers applies to any other transport vehicle with the same number of passengers (including KTX trains).
What I ask for is specific accidents or incidents (best a list or statistics), if anyone saw such. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(going way offtopic, but) Alas, not all high-speed accidents have had zero fatalities, the most notable case being the Eschede train disaster.
But I'd say plunge forward and add the section, people will add to it if anything important is missing. Jpatokal (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The famous Eschede disaster happened at just 200 km/h on an upgraded conventional line, and that detail was critical: the wheel broke and the bogie derailed 5 km before the accident, but nothing much happened until it hit an old switch not replaced by one according to high-speed standards (with nothing to get stuck in), throwing the train into the pylons of a bridge that was again not rebuilt according to high-speed line standards (with no pier between the tracks). That's precisely why I used the "on actual high-speed rail lines" qualifier. (The 1997 derailment of a Pendolino at Piacenza, Italy is a similar story, by the way.) In fact it's not just derailments: collisions and bombings of high-speed trains with fatalities occurred on conventional lines without exception, too.
Regarding the THSR, I remembered since a third issue, that of subsistence of bridge pylons. I'll gather the sources and write the new section sometime over the weekend (probably only on Sunday). --Rontombontom (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now created the section in question, and remembered/found two more issues. Regarding user Ssyublyn's reference: this appears to be related to the dispute in late 2006 regarding 33 construction deficiencies claimed by an inspector group, and is already referred to in the article. I also recalled that there was some dispute regarding soil vibrations near an urban area, but don't remember if this was in the construction phase or after, and haven't found a source yet -- anyone else? --Rontombontom (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Very minor language question just for my education, but what would be the correct English here? "Overtaken" was in the (English-language) source and also appears here (used by a doctor), but I guess "overdosed" would be better? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Overdosed" would imply taking (way) too much of something and getting poisoned/killed by it, which doesn't seem to be the case here, so simply "had taken sleeping pills" sounds fine. However, saying "the driver became dysfunctional" is quite odd, what were the exact symptoms? Jpatokal (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for changing that without more discussion. According to the source, [3] the wording was that he became "temporarily dysfunctional" and that the driver had been taking "non-prescription sleeping pills". I don't know if there's a better way to put it, since the source does not give us any more information on the condition of the driver. -Multivariable (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem about changing without more discussion, it's just that English is not my first language and I like to learn :-)
The "was found to have overtaken sleeping pills" expression appears in the second source. Regarding "temporarily dysfunctional", the first source (which is newer) uses it to negate earlier media reports about the driver having fallen asleep, and the authority considers it an even more serious breach. While the first link doesn't give any details, and the second still said "dozed off", the actual details in the second are unresponsiveness (he spaced out) and slow reaction time.
Maybe we should put "temporarily dysfunctional" in scare quotes. --Rontombontom (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Major revision of structuring, History, Controversy and Construction sections[edit]

Prompted by the dead link galore following major source Taiwan Times's recent website re-design, and my search for sources on a vibrations issue mentioned above, I also implemented a revision of the article which I planned for over a year. As it is quite major, I thought I should detail the reasons and some of my choices on sources and content here rather than just in edit summaries.

  • I felt that the Eurotrain/awarding part of the Controversy section (which was largely my addition) ended up too long in comparison to other issues, yet still lacked many details. So I shortened it, and created the new Eurotrain article, where I covered the issue more elaborately.
  • The rest of the Controversy section was all over the place. I tried to group the material thematically rather than chronologically, and complement it with a lot more sources.
  • I also thought for long that the article over-emphasizes the Shinkansen origins, given the domestic input and Eurotrain legacies (also see Core technology/system). In the sources I dug up now, I found that the mixing of technologies extended even to the core system, and that this has been reason for considerable friction between THSRC and TSC, with just the TSC side and Japanese media being explicit about and emphasizing the integration of Japanese and European technologies, as a reason for conflict and delays.
  • The articles about the conflict between THSRC and TSC regarding technology integration consistently report that TSC raised safety concerns as argument. Now TSC can hardly be considered an objective source, given that the technology mix affected its commercial interests negatively and the fact that the same technologies were then mixed with no qualms in China; but I thought it's worth to include this in the Controversy section, and more explicitly in the earthquake issue (see below).
  • The unsourced sentence about the UrEDAS earthquake early warning system was also bugging me for long, because I couldn't find any source mentioning its use in THSR. But the February earthquake 'did me a favour' in generating lots of English-language media coverage of the issue, with sources explicitly saying that THSR does not have an earthquake early warning system, only a simple detection system that's not even a design of earthquake-experienced Japanese manufacturers, which some (including experts) criticised as a deficiency. (I also made some readup on the technical issues behind the debate on whether installing UrEDAS would make sense. If anyone is interested, it appears that the original system brings insignificant time savings if the quake occurs close to the line and close to the surface; as common in Taiwan and as happened when a quake derailed a train on the Joetsu Shinkansen - see f.e. SHATTERED BELIEF: Biting the bullet - and THSRC was looking for a more advanced system, something into which research is on-going in Japan. I realise however that including this in the article would be WP:OR.)
  • The original article included this: "Critics pointed out that the total cost had exceeded $15 billion, or about $650 for every person in Taiwan." Without comparing it to some original costs, and without explaining why cost per person in Taiwan is relevant (the $15 billion aren't tax dollars), this doesn't make any sense; what's more, I find that this was a mis-statement of the source, where the numbers came up in a much more ominous context. So I cut this down and covered the change of cost estimates with better sources.
  • I'm not sure what to make of the New York Times quote on energy usage. Where is the controversy? Maybe this part lost its context in some edit in the past? And is a long inline quote fine with current Wikipedia policy? The points made are certainly worth to include, but maybe elsewhere and maybe in a different form. I left it untouched for now.
  • I also deleted a paragraph about the airport link: methinks the list of suppliers of another project are irrelevant here. However, I wouldn't be against re-inserting the airport link elsewhere in the article, and mentioning the shared suppliers, if a source establishes some connection in operation or ownership.

I hope other editors are fine with the new version and that these explanations are sufficient. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More major edits: move and improvement of the track map, branching out the Costs & financing resp. Management sub-sections, condensation of the Stations section. I also corrected my misinterpretation of the source on costs in an earlier edit, completed the picture on finances, and added the "fat cats" controversy. Still want to do: a new Operation/Tickets sub-section, importing what I can from the Chinese version of the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article?[edit]

With the tickets section, I have now completed all the major additions/improvements I planned. I also asked the creator of the map on his Wikimedia Commons user page to update it. Once that's done, I'd add a WP:GA nomination. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The lead is somewhat short (but not much). More importantly, the paragraphs are very short, and prose that length should not be more than two paragraphs. Several places throughout the article some of the paragraphs are very short.
    • So? Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think what Arsenikk means is that, for such a long article, the lead is shorther than would be expected. On the length of paragraphs, what I think he means is that one sentence per paragraph looks odd—it disrupts the prose. What I would suggest (and what I think he is suggesting) is that the lede be combined into two paragraphs, so the prose flows better, and then the lead be slightly expanded so it summarises the entire article. Wackywace converse | contribs 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Lede now reordered and not just slightly expanded to summarize the entire article. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The infobox used is intended for North American railway companies, not railway lines and network such as THSR. I would recommend using {{Infobox rail line}}. For instance, reporting mark is a NA phenomena, similarly the infobox lacks a number of technical details.
    • Done, with more technical details added. --Multivariable (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "build-operate-transfer" should be lower-case.
  • Stick the references behind all punctuation, including parenthesis etc. at the end of sentences.
    • Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Moved remaining references to ends of sentences. -Multivariable (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you misread Arsenikk here: I think he noticed one place where a sentence ended with ). and I placed the ref tag before the closing paranthesis. But, even if you did not misread Arsenikk, check WP:REFPUN: reference tags can be placed in the middle of the sentence. Given that many of the citations were placed in the middle of the sentence because they are for specific parts of the sentence only, moving them to sentence ends makes the connections harder to find (especially if there are half a dozen ref tags). I request that you undo all of those edits. (I don't hit Undo because you made a number of other changes.) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, it was the parenthesis thing I was referring to. Refs can be in the middle of sentences, but if they are at the end, they go after punctuation (not before). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • All units need to be converted to imperial; this is easiest done using {{convert}}.
  • In the first sentence under "civil works", a better word than "realized" would be preferred. While probably correct, other terms are easier to understand.
    • Hm, do you have a proposal that's easier? "were under the responsibility of" was the best I could think of, which is now in the article; but you tell me if it is easier to understand. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't measure distances of hundreds of km in m and ft, but rather in km and mi.
    • In the specific instance of the record length bridge, when the significant digit is metre, I don't see the point. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Then use km with three decimals. That is the common way of doing things, is more professional and is less stressing on the reader (particularly the ft). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Hm, I'm not sure it is the common way of doing things in metric. Using metre as unit for even very long objects is common in professional engineering literature and even general media when reporting on those. (The source article for the bridge length in question used metre as unit, too.) However, imperial units are another thing; I changed the metre to foot conversions to metre to mile conversions with three decimals for all lengths above 10,000 m. Is that acceptable? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What is TRUPO? Is it an acronym for something? If it isn't, it should be lower case. If it is, spell it out.
    • It IS spelt out, right on first occurence at the start of the Civil Works section.--Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I must have overseen it. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is very seldom optimal to write prose with parenthesis. While technically correct, good prose uses commas and full sentences or fragments to portray the information. For instance "(3.5% at one location)" should be taken out of the parenthesis and made a fragment after a comma, such as ", although it is 3.5% at one location.
    • Done with a few exceptions. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • There will of course always be some places that parenthesis are a good choice, but not for longer sections of text. Looks good as far as I can see. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Once I rewrite the most criticised Revenues section, almost all parantheses will have disappeared. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • When mentioning disjunctions, such as "Tainan–Kaohsiung" and "Japanese–European", use an endash (–) instead of a hyphen (-).
  • Is there an article on the Minister of Transport? If so, link to it.
    • There is a link in the article to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, but I there is not an article specifically for the Minister of Transport. -Multivariable (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, forgot to leave a note on that myself. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Try to avoid using "see Foo" to direct readers to navigate the article.
    • Looks like this has already been fixed. -Multivariable (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I did that and forgot to leave a note here. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting with "Despite pre-opening doubts," seems redundant, POV and is unreferenced. I would suggest removing it.
    • The THSR was highly controversial and some reference to those "doubts" is quite necessary for NPOV. (A reference would, of course, be nice though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpatokal (talkcontribs)
      • This sentence lost its original context while editing; while a source on pre-reference doubts regarding modal share would indeed be nice, I don't have one as of yet, so I removed the sentence for now. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Trains do not normally operate with full capacity, so the figures given in the environmental section seem a bit fuzzy. I am a little concerned about the environmental section, not because there is any non-environmental about the project, nor because anything should be removed, but, well, it seems a bit of a coatrack. On the other side, I'm not 100% sure what to do about it, if removing the section is a good idea or not.
    • What does "coatrack" mean? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think Arsenikk means that the section just seems to be there. Although it is informational, well-cited, etc., it appears to contribute less than other sections to the overall article. Perhaps converting it into a sub-section of History? -Multivariable (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • So that's what "coatrack" means. Now, the three points in it were originally part of different sub-sections of History, but I separated them out because none really fitted in, especially the one on the energy consumption and emissions of the trains (that's an operation parameter, not history). I'm not sure what to do with it at the moment, will think about it later, but IMO its parts should stay together. (I am sorry BTW for this low-frequency activity after having requested GA myself, but while I waited for the review, I started another big project on the Korea Train Express and attached pages, which should be done with by November 1.) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the technical details could go under rolling stock? Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I moved the energy consumption figures to the Rolling stock section as suggested, and the other two back to construction. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The rolling stock is a vital part of the system, and I would like to see a longer section. In particular more specifications such as train length, power output etc. Doesn't have to be a lot.
    • There is the separate article for that.--Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • There is very little on the rolling stock. I would of course expect a four-page article on the rolling stock there (or how much there now is to write), but the rolling stock is one of the most important aspects of the system. Remember: many people may chose to use this article is such a way that links and subpages do not become available (printing, then reading, the article; copying to other web sites etc). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I got your point now. I expanded that section as suggested; and, having noticed that the linked article is unsourced, I sourced and totally re-edited it, too... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "6-12" should be "six to twelve".
  • "Business" should not be capitalized.
  • When writing a date with American formatting (Month DD, YYYY) there is always a comma or period (full stop) after the year.
  • "Seniors" is a better term than "old people".
  • "Business Class" is not a proper noun, and thus not capitalized.
    • Business and standard class might be generic terms for airlines (I don't know), but for railways, they aren't. Standard would be 1st class, 2nd class; any designations deviating from that (Business Class, Economy Class, Standard Class, Comfort, Green Car, even First Class when spelled out) are trademarks for services. However, the article was not consistent in the usage of the correct terms here, which are "Business Car" and "Standard Car"; I corrected that. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll except the explanation. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • While the "Annual traffic figures" table is good, encyclopedic and relevant, the table "Milestones in cumulative passenger numbers" is not. What it presents is mere trivialities and because the delta varies in the left column, it is nearly impossible to get an intuitive value out of. Such information is best presented as ridership/time period, either in table or graph format.
    • Milestones table now dumped from the article (I 'archived' it to the Commons description page of the daily ridership diagram), but I kept the 10 millionth and 100 millionth passenger milestones as text. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Having a section on revenue is fine, the the table is excessive. The information presented is too detailed for an encyclopedia, and is also presented in a way that only specialists are able to understand. People really interested in this information can look at the annual report.
    • I'll attempt a re-edit and return to the issue of the entire section here in the Discussion section in detail later (possibly days later, sorry). However, the table is definitely not excessive: it presents only the four main markers of performance (which are referenced haphazardly in the media), separates out the items that really matter (depreciation, interest), and puts all three years side by side; whereas the annual reports list some hundred items and further sub-sums on multiple pages, and compare only two years each if at all. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Terms such as "operating costs", "depreciation", "financial costs", "cash-flow", "break-even" and "depreciation period" need to be wikilinked. The whole section on revenue is very prone to technical terminology, and I fear that a person without background in economics or finance will have a hard time understanding it.
    • Wikilinking done where possible. I also corrected some imprecisions (EBITDA and operating cash flow resp. EBIT and operating income differ etc.). Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles on accounting terms are low-quality to non-existent. Regarding understanding, first, let me offer my own perspective as a person without background in economy, and one without English as first language to boot. When I first met upon these terms in English-language news media (where they are rarely if ever explained, even if it's not a business paper), financial statements in table form were a great help: it was easier to figure out what is what when seeing the connections, seeing the sequence of additions and subtractions. This was also a reason I added the table criticised in the previous point; a help for the reader reading the text of the Revenues and costs section. Second, the 'story' of this section is "why is THSRC making a loss", and that story is about depreciation and interest. IMO this subject is an essential part of for an encyclopaedic article on the subject, but it's difficult to avoid technical terminology when talking about depreciation and interest without going towards accounting 101. Third, wouldn't then be best to give the information for those who can understand it and allow others the options to skip the section or to go educating themselves (following the wikilinks now added)? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In the sentence starting with "By the summer of 2009", "two thirds" should be "two-thirds".
  • "Fat cats" needs to be explained.
    • What aspect of it? --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think what Arsenikk means here is, although "fat cats" makes sense in the context of the article, its use in this article (even with quotations) is still confusing. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better phrase at the moment. -Multivariable (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • That is, you read Arsenikk's request to mean that the expression is not plain English enough, and a definition should be given? Will think about this; I thought he might be asking for the explanation of some aspect of the controversy. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Let me be more specific: "fat cat" is not an encyclopedic term, but a weasel word. If you cannot find a better term, it must be left out. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I used "fat cats" because it was how politicians, the media, and the accused themselves commonly referred to this controversy. I now gave an explanation to the paragraph, adding an extra link to an article on the "fat cat" resolution of the Taiwanese parliament, in which the Financial Supervisory Commission chairman is quoted with a definition of the term, which I paraphrased. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The section "Technical issues, incidents and accidents" should just use regular prose, not bullet points.
  • The table should be using endashes instead of hyphens.
  • An "in popular culture" section is seldom suitable for rail transport articles, and at least not for such trivial mention as here. In addition, it is not referenced.
    • I agree, this section seems almost trivial, but the fact that the system has its own (wikilinked) video game amounts to something. However, this doesn't necessarily fit in anywhere else in the article either. -Multivariable (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't wrote or edit that part, however, I have encountered similar sections in several Wikipedia articles on rail lines or other architectural objects, in particular mentions of the train simulators, so I thought that that section is fine where it is. However, I'm not a gamer myself, and I am not familiar with the TV show Amazing Race, so I can't tell if these provided a similar level of public attention to the line as, say, the film Mission:Impossible did for the Channel Tunnel. I would like to look for sources before deciding on removing the section or not. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • While M:I was a blockbuster and actually may have had a certain promotional value for the Chunnel, I doubt either of the two issues here are known much beyond their fan circles. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I have now sourced both, and added a third, a Taiwanese movie (which I ended up watching in full). Regarding importance, I don't know what standard to meet, so I just present what I found; if you or others say it's still all too trivial, I would not be against dumping the entire section.
          • For The Amazing Race, I found US TV ratings for this specific episode, and some articles speaking of the show's tourism boosting effect in general, so I'd guess there is a promotional value. (On the other hand, I looked at it on YouTube, and found it awful crap...) For the train simulator, I found it warranted an article in Taipei Times; on the other hand, the video gamer reviews I found were not too kind. Regarding the movie Summer's Tail, I submit that THSR is more background than plot element, but the director is quoted joking that he should have titled it "High-Speed Rail's Tail". --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "High-speed rail" is linked in the article, and "rail transport in Taiwan" is linked in a navbox, so neither should be in the "see also" section.
  • First see also, then references, then further reading, then external links.
    • Done. I'll have to think about your other proposals resp. they will be more work than I have time for tonight. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am placing the article on hold. Overall the article is well written, interesting and covers all relevant areas. The above are all smaller details that are easily correct. Arsenikk (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still a few more things to do here ;) Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The article has stood at a stand-still for nearly a month now, despite numerous unresolved issues. I am therefore failing the article. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Having requested the GA review myself, I apologise for this stand-still; but I was too caught up in another project that had current event relevance and needed a total re-edit of one main and two dozen related articles... I'll re-nominate this one only once I deal with the outstanding issues. This will probably take a few more weeks, as I'm still putting finishing touches to the other project. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Note: some unregistered editor Romanised and inserted the normal fare table from the Chinese Wikipedia version of the article. Back in September I thought about inserting it but decided against, thinking it would be lots of useless data. But I'm not removing it now that someone else put it in, unless a reviewer says so. (But I had to update it, the inserted table had the old Business Car prices...) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion on the Revenue section[edit]

I have no economics background and indeed found this section rather turgid and impenetrable. It shoudl be rewritten in good plain English with appropriate wiki-links. I also note that the preceding section is titled Ridership. This is not an English word to my knowledge. Passenger levels would be better. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your knowledge is limited: Ridership. Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a British vs. American terminology thing, though I find "ridership" in British railway publications and even Transport of London documents (see discussion on KTX Talk page). However, given that the article started out in American English (which I kept to as per Wikipedia policy even though I'm annoyed by the double-inverted date format), it should stay.
The difficulty both reviewers had with the economy section perlex me (I have no economics background, either), I'll react to that later. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Try clarifying statements like: "The operational break-even level (income less operating costs, excluding depreciation and financial costs)"; "The cash-flow break-even level (excluding depreciation)"; "adopted a new depreciation charge that is variable in time."; "blamed an unreasonable financial structure,"; "when an income of NT$1.9 billion in ticket and NT$0.2 billion in other sales stood against operating costs around NT$0.85-0.9 billion and interest payments around NT$1.3 billion per month". Try removing the gobble-de-gook and rewriting in plain english. would be my recommendation. With regards to "ridership", I see it redirects to patronage. Obviously some sorto of word used in US transport circles, but not plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not "gobble-de-gook", that's standard financial terminology. I really don't see how you can describe "cash-flow break-even level excluding depreciation" as anything else than, uhh, cash-flow break-even level excluding depreciation -- this is not the Simple English wikipedia, where that would have to be formulated as "the level where more money is coming in than going out, but let's pretend we don't notice that that some things get old and die". Jpatokal (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I responded to the same Q at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations; bottomline (pun) is that "Revenue" section which really about losses can be safely trimmed down and merged with "Management" which is really "Financial management" (i.e. not operational, not technical etc.). The P&L table would look better exressed in billions, with insignificant lines merged or removed (who cares about 1 mil in tax credit if there's a 5 billion loss?). East of Borschov 06:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As per above, I'll deal with the main bones of contention with the Revenues section later; however, some quick comments on the above: reducing the workforce and replacing management itself go beyond financial management; this is an encyclopaedia and not a news article so I see no reason to round sourced data (or do you mean to do it by keeping six digits behind the decimal dot?); pre-tax and after-tax net income are different things even if their value is nearly the same; and methinks some readers will care about whether the company pays taxes or not. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to respond to Jezhotwells's continued questioning of the term ridership: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so Jpatokal's link to that stub article was little helpful. Instead, I suggest that you look at the widespread usage of the term in Wikipedia articles like Bay Area Rapid Transit (a GA), List of United States light rail systems by ridership, Oslo Metro (also GA), or indeed Template:Infobox rail line. As an Americanism, it is not limited to 'US transport circles', but plain English enough to be used by common newspapers, for example this. Although an Americanism, it is even spreading in the UK, see Transport of London's page on London Buses (which is again a general page). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now re-edited the Revenues and costs section. On one hand, I tried to add short definitions to the terms. On the other hand, I changed the structure. Previously, the text was a history, dealing with all developments in their sequence in time. I thought things will be easier to understand if the text walks through the different measures of financial performance, giving the development in time separately. I also moved some stuff to the start of the Management section.
As I wrote in a comment to Arsenikk above, this section is not merely about dry numbers, or just about losses as East of Borschov wrote: the sources allow us to say something about why the company is (was?) making a net loss. The very short answer would be that two high extra cost items emerged from realising a mega-project as build-operate-transfer private investment. So tell me if that shines through in the new version of the text. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't the accessdates be written out, like Retrieved 13 September 2010 instead of Retrieved 13-09-2010? Otherwise, I think this a great article, even a possible FAC. --Eisfbnore (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a MoS guideline on this? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:DATESNO. --Eisfbnore talk 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Reading it and reading your objection again, I first note that the accessdates resp. dates in the article are in ISO 8601 format, with year first. I think the accessdates (and dates) in the References definitely don't constitute use in prose, and arguably no use within sentences, but could be considered a long list, and I definitely did use them for conciseness; thus in my opinion the guideline is fulfilled. The requirement for format consistency in the references is also fulfilled. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Checking the Talk pages, I find that the specific issue of YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes has been subject to great controversy, with some administrators arguing strongly against my interpretation above. However, the dispute led to this failed RfC, with 33 for, 70 against and 4 neutral on a specific ban. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Same data in text, diagrams and tables[edit]

When some data is shown on a diagram or displayed in a table, are rounded figures or even just a qualitative description of a trend (if there is one) not enough in the text? I ask because of the seat occupation data: first, there is no trend, second, the spread of the values is less than three percentage points, that's not too noteworthy a variation; third, these changes of percentage point magnitude are discussed with a precision of a hundredth percentage point. IMO "Seat occupation is around 45%" (and "over 99% of trains are on time") would be enough in the text part. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, some of this was my doing. I was trying to re-work a part of a sentence (that was left over after adding in more material to part of the sentence) back into the original paragraph. I agree, some indication (trends, description) in the text should be fine. Any more would defeat the purpose of the table/figure. -Multivariable (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No prob, and I ask in general, because there are other tables and diagrams where I wasn't sure that the text next to it is sufficient or overdone. Some language questions. In the Stations section, there are the two branchlines built for the connection of exurban stations with downtown areas: I think "in Tainan" would be wrong as the station is exurban, and you left "for Hsinchu" for the other unchanged? Also, I ask for future reference, what is the singular/plural rule behind "depreciation and interest was equal to..."? What about "cash expenses" -- when can it be treated as singular (I realise my present edit now treats it both as plural and as singular)?
In general, how do you like the new version of the Revenues and costs section, especially from the viewpoint of readability? I found the rewording request from the GA reviewers most difficult to comply with, and Jpatokal's comment about "gobble-de-gook" and describing "cash-flow break-even level excluding depreciation" differently was exactly how I felt, but I tried my best. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, Tainan City and Tainan County recently merged into one entity, so "in Tainan" should be fine now. I think it would be fine to mention Hsinchu as exurban, since it really is kind of out there. Is "depreciation and interest" a single term? I think for that sentence, "depreciation and interest were 95% of THSRC's accumulated debt." should be fine. "Cash expense" (singular) makes it sound like it was a single expenditure, when I'm sure it wasn't. Then again, I have no financial background so this is just speaking from a layperson's point of view.
I think the Revenues and costs section looks good, but I have no financial background. It did take me a while to get through some of the jargon, but those are necessary in the context of the section. The wikilinking definitely helps! I'll take a look at it again, and see if I can make it more readable, though I do appreciate your effort in improving this article. (On a side note, I need to apologize for the references fiasco a while back. I didn't realize it until I was looking back on the Discussion just now). -Multivariable (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding depreciation and interest, above I actually managed to confuse the original ("was 95%", singular) and your correction ("were 95%", plural). But the fine point of the English language I am uncertain about here is whether either version of the sentence can be misread as pertaining to depreciation and interest each. If so, perhaps "the sum of depreciation and interest was 95%..." is best?
On "cash expenses", I wasn't clear: putting that in plural is OK with me, but it is (presently) followed by "(which exclude depreciation)" (I changed this to plural) and then "both" (referring to revenue and cash expenses, treating the latter as a single entity). So what I really should have asked, is "both" okay in English when one of the two subjects is in singular and the other in plural? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I would have assumed it was the sum of both without it, but from the context it should be clear that 95% is for the combined total. "Both" is fine in English when you have both a singular and a plural term (e.g. "Both he and his friends..."). -Multivariable (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I just went over the section to try to make some readability adjustments. I re-worded some sentences, put certain terms in parenthesis rather than by commas, etc. I had a quick question: is "BOT franchise" the same as "BOT contract"? The term is unfamiliar to me, so I was wondering if it was a commonly-used phrase. -Multivariable (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In this context, franchise means the license to run public transport for a specific amount of time, given by the state to a private company. So one could say that the BOT franchise is the subject of a BOT contract. But I'd have to look whether the two are interchangeable and/or the proper one was picked where and when they are used in the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the new re-wordings, two issues. In the first sentence, I meant to say that both growth in the first three years and the staying behind expectations were developments following similar developments in ridership -- perhaps moving the phrase back in your version would work? "Thus revenues grew over the first three years but stayed below expectations along with ridership." The other issue is: your version says "THSRC posted its first operating profit in 2009", but isn't it the case that we are talking about numbers posted for the year 2009, which were actually posted in 2010? (That's why I thought "for 2009" is correct.) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Perhaps, "Thus revenues grew along with ridership over the first three years but both remained below expectations."? I feel like with the wording you suggested, "along with ridership" is just kind of tacked on instead of incorporated into the sentence. I see what you mean by the "posted in 2009" wording. Using "posted for 2009" should be fine, though maybe going along with the source wording and saying "THSRC generated its first operating profit in 2009..." might be clearer. Thoughts? -Multivariable (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry to go on about nuances upon nuances :-) On the revenues/ridership thing, your newest version sounds good, and I get you about tagged on; but its second half dublicates a point of the forecast/ridership sections rather than expressing that the same pattern for revenues is a consequence. What about: "Thus revenues grew along with ridership over the first three years but also followed them in remaining below expectations". On the for/in 2009 issue, my problem with the formulation in the source is that I feel "generated" alludes to activities, whereas the positive change was mostly the result of a change in accounting (first part of the sentence in our article) -- or do you think "generated" does go along with the first part of the sentence? --Rontombontom (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great that we're at the point where we can discuss nuances upon nuances. :) I think what you suggested for the revenues/ridership sentence should be fine. Ah, I didn't realize you were trying to emphasize the change in accounting method. Perhaps the original "for 2009" would work better then. I'll go ahead and make those changes. -Multivariable (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It's done then :-) By the way, if you speak Chinese, can you look at this (bottom of page)? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I speak some Chinese but am not a native speaker. I went ahead and responded over there, but I'll include my response here: I think it should be (literally) "Variable voltage variable frequency (VVVF) control with synchronous driver motor" for the first part (though just "variable frequency" should be fine). The second part looks fine ("The power of the entire train is 10,260 kW"). -Multivariable (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! So I didn't mis-translate... which means that my original problem persists: the claim in the quote (that the 700T trains have synchronous motors) is doubtful, because all related Japanese Shinkansen have asynchronous induction motors. However, I couldn't find a single other reliable source. (The Chinese and Japanese Wikis do say asynchronous induction motor, but without a source or the motor type designation.) --Rontombontom (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that the claim for synchronous motors is doubtful, especially if the Shinkansen doesn't even have it. If you don't feel a source is reliable (WP:RS), then it should be fine to leave it out until another source can be found. Let me know if there's anything else I can help look over, or if there are any sections you think need to be expanded or researched more. -Multivariable (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The type of motor is the sole significant data I'd like to ascertain. Other than that, maybe an update on what's up with the Kaohsiung Station and Xizhi Depot plans.
Good you have spotted that 6250/6450 typo of mine, from three months ago... By the way, can you access the JRTR website? I can't -- I hope it's not down permanently, because the article used as source is not archived on (I only found a copy here). --Rontombontom (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem accessing the JRTR site here; just a little slow. I'll download a copy in case, though. I'll look into the motors more, though I did find some info on Kaohsiung Station. Currently, construction is going on to move all railways within the city underground. The TRA tracks are being moved underground between Xinzuoying (THSR Zuoying) and Kaohsiung Station (zh:高雄市區鐵路地下化計畫). I'm sure I heard last year that construction had officially started, but it may have only been for the TRA section (even though they're supposedly running parallel). [4] While we're at it, I also found an older source (from 2007) about a proposal to extend the HSR line down to Pingtung, but I doubt that's going anywhere. [5] -Multivariable (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Re jrtr, maybe it's an error of my DNS server. At any rate, I could archive it on the free archiving site WebCite, and will soon put it as archiveurl into the citation in the Wiki articles. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, everyone go check Talk:Taiwan High Speed 700T train for a re-naming proposal. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Continental Engineering Corporation[edit]

I undid an edit claiming that Continental Engineering Corporation was the primary company involved in construction, noting that it's unsourced in the edit summary. In addition, I think it's plain wrong. CEC was part of the consortia for C260 and C270 only -- check a list of contractors on page 3 here; a number of other companies had (at least) two contracts, too. (And I would not see the point to list them all.) --Rontombontom (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, in addition to C260 and C270 (which you mentioned), they also had a role in C250 and C295. [6] However, I agree, calling them the "primary company" is pushing it. -Multivariable (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, those are station contracts, marked S (S250 and S295). There is another company (Evergreen) with two (open line) civil works and two station contracts in the complete list of construction contractors I found in this annual report. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (TC • I love Wikipedia!) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • For the table under "Ridership", there should be an "s" after "5 minute"
    Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a number of one-sentence paragraphs which could be elaborated or and merged with other paragraphs.
    Done with three exceptions, which I have to ask about specifically.
    The first is the 'section lede' of the Construction section. Since this is an info pertaining to the entire construction which can't be placed into the sub-sections, and it contains all the info of this kind I or other editors of the article found, I can neither merge nor expand it. Is it okay to leave this one unchanged?
    I would say yes.
    The second is the first paragraph of the Design and implementation sub-section in the Controversy section. It doesn't belong together with the other two paragraphs, so expanding remains. I can expand on the union protests (there are the three links), if that's not considered a waste of words.
    Sure, go ahead.
    Forgot to note that in the end I already did -- it might need copyedit though. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    The last one is the sentence after the current train frequency table. That sentence logically follows the table, so merging it with the paragraph before the table would break the flow. But I can't think of anything to add. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Taiwan, Trains and Transport portal links could be added.
    OK but where? Checking other pages, the place seems to be the See also section, but the THSR article currently lacks one. If I remember correctly, the section was removed after all wikilinks in it were removed because they were too trivial or were already wikilinked somewhere else in the article. Should I add a See also with portal links only? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    At the very bottom of "In popular culture".
    Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    I added the Clear because if the portals box is left hanging, it changes the right limit for the References, narrowing the columns, which IMHO is more annoying than the vertical whitespace (especially when viewed on browsers set to large fonts or ~800px windows). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    To fix the above problem, I changed the portal box into a portal bar; I hope that's okay, and it is placed on the right location at the same place (there is no recommendation in the template documentation). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This page tells me that there are no dead refs, which is quite surprising given the number of refs there are.
    There are editors keeping a watch on those links :-) ...which are numerous, but most come from a handful of sites. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What are the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan? Some quick definitions could be included.
    Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The words "maker" in "main maker of the French TGV, and Siemens, the main maker of the German ICE." could be replaced with the more-appropriate "manufacturer".
    Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Southbound trains are designated by odd train numbers. Northbound trains have the same numbering scheme, but have even train numbers" – according to whom? Please explain why it's odd?
    Odd an even numbers, that is non-divisible and divisible by two, as in: Parity (mathematics). Added a wikilink. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    OK, got it. I thought odd here means "strange". :)
  • "for other stations. For Southbound trains" there shouldn't be capital letter for southbound.
    Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Train frequency was ramped up progressively from an initial 38 per day." source?
    I added the source for the initial 38 per day; but this sentence summarizes the data in the frequency diagram, which is fully sourced on its Wikimedia Commons page. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is only a minor request, the Commons link could be better positioned under "External links" rather than "Further reading".
    I find it is even a guideline: WP:LAYOUT says so. Done. --23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the new link.

The article is really well referenced. With some polishing, copy editing, and some small elaborations and trimming, this article could become a FAC.

Being relatively new to the article rating stuff (this is the first article I nominated for GA), I have to ask: what is and where do I find the conditions for a "FAC" rating? (I or another editor will look at the rest of the criticisms tomorrow.) --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:Featured article criteria
Thanks! Now I went through all your points. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


  1. Well written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Symbol support vote.svg and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Symbol neutral vote.svg
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Symbol support vote.svg
    (b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Symbol support vote.svg and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Symbol support vote.svg
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Symbol support vote.svg
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Symbol support vote.svg
  9. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  10. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Symbol support vote.svg

Before FAC nomination[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Taiwan High Speed Rail/archive1 attracted three reviewers, two with single comments and one with a more thorough review. Earlier this month I went through and applied all their points. The peer review bot just auto-archived the PR page after the period of two weeks of inactivity. Yesterday and today, Multivariable completed the Construction section with nice additions on stations and earthquake mitigation. In place of another addition he had in mind, I created a separate article, Taipei Railway Underground Project, and wikilinked it from here—I'd very much welcome corrections/copyedits/enhancements of that article, and its integration with other TRA or Taipei public transport related articles, BTW. In the THSR article, I suggest additions in one more field: photos of infrastructure.

We have a photo showing Japanese slab track and a tunnel portal. IMHO another showing a viaduct would be nice. This one is the only proper train-on-viaduct photo with no copyright problems Multivariable and I found, and the shot could connect to the text of the "Civil works" section perfectly: it shows the end of that 157 km continuous elevated section. However, the original photo is of bad quality. The current version is my edit (I rotated, cropped and brightened it), but if you have Photoshop and/or better than bare basic photo editing skills, please do another attempt. In addition, I think another photo showing station architecture could be added in the "Stations" section—there is a great selection of photos in Commons, including some by fellow editors of the article, so I'd leave the selection to others.

I will surely edit the financial parts of the article in a few days or weeks, once THSRC releases its 2010 Annual Report, but I think FAC nomination doesn't have to wait for that. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I already started incorporating the Taipei Underground Railway Project article into existing articles and will continue to do that when I'm bored. :) The current viaduct photo may be sufficient for a thumbnail in the article, though I agree, a better quality photo should be found. In terms of station photos, I feel like Hsinchu Station's architecture would be worth noting (with Taoyuan and Taichung as secondary choices), though I'm not a huge fan of the currently available photos. I do think that the station interiors are well-done, so showing those as opposed to exterior shots would work (Here, I'm thinking any of them - Taichung, Zuoying, Chiayi, Tainan, etc.).
Regarding the rolling stock photo, I'm actually a bigger fan of this one [7], though the resolution is a bit small. -Multivariable (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Hsinchu Station exterior shots, I like this one most, though there is a lack of contrast between the roof and the sky and a lack of feel of a third dimension—is that what you mean by "I'm not a huge fan of the currently available photos"?
Regarding interior shots, I'd really leave picking a candidate to others.
Regarding the rolling stock photo, the one you propose is nice even if small. However, my problem is that it is a station-and-rolling-stock photo, but not the best for either purpose (not much of the station is visible, the platform covers the underframe of one train, the others' is in the shadows). The current one is not too good, I agree -- what about this, a depot photo with a visible wheel? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, I don't feel any of the photos really capture the architecture of the station. I think the current rolling stock photo should be fine; I don't know if a depot photo is more or less relevant than a station photo, and it also shows even less of the train length than the previous photo. XD No problem on leaving photo choices to others! -Multivariable (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I mean picking a photo for inclusion in the article collectively in a discussion here is one thing, but I don't feel qualified to even pick a candidate for such discussion in that field (station interior shot). Regarding train length, I think the track/tunnel (and viaduct) photo(s) already show that, so I thought that the rolling stock photo could add something by being more "technical" and "detail". --Rontombontom (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, with regards to the rolling stock. Since there is already a photo of the train during a trial run, I can see why a depot photo wouldn't be out of place. Regarding a station interior shot, I actually had a few in mind (since I had to go through them when I expanded the station pages). [8][9][10][11] Likewise, there may be more photos available on Flikr that satisfy the criteria for Wikimedia Commons. Personally, I think station interior shots should show the architecture as well as people. Lighting/framing are also important.
I also realized that the article lacks a platform-level photo. Two possible candidates I found: [12] [13] Thoughts? -Multivariable (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Of all the photos, with the points you made, the best theme would be the last one: platform shot, people, station roof architecture. If only it wouldn't be so bleached... Of the other photos, I like just the two Zuoying Station photos you made best (I checked all of them in thumbnail version, too). Looking why, I realise the concourse photo really captures everything about a "station concourse": roof architecture, floor, banks, people, food stand, information table, station clock. The platform photo just looks good.
If you mean to include both, the question is: where would you put the platform photo? There is one photo-free section where I can see a platform photo as on-topic, albeit one from Taipei or Banciao: Controversy > Design and implementation. (Didn't you have some night shots from there?) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... you're right about where to put a second one. I guess (deep down) I thought it was a pity there weren't any station photos in the main article. Since the Taipei and Banciao stations are underground, they're not nearly as photogenic as any of the others ones, unfortunately. If we can only put one of the two Zuoying photos of mine you mentioned, I would probably pick the concourse one, since we already have quite a few train shots.
A quick question: under "Operations", should the standard car photo and the GPS navigation cellphone photo be switched? The "Services" section is the one that talks about train speed, while the "Tickets and fares" talks about Standard/Business cars.
And no, I do not believe I took any night photos (my camera isn't quite cut out for that). :( -Multivariable (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I should have announced the reason here when I moved the GPS navigation cellphone photo to tickets: it was because of the ticket in the photo; I thought it's the most interesting "ticket" photo around. Maybe more emphasis should be put on the ticket in the caption? Regarding the interior photo, Standard/Business Cars are first mentioned in the last sentence of Services. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More station/platform photo candidates[edit]

Taichung platform photo
  • I imported another Taichung platform photo from Flickr, which looks well-composed, special due to morning lights, shows roof architecture, platform, info tables and people.
  • I mixed up stuff regarding night photos above; the Taipei platform photos and night photos from elsewhere I remembered weren't yours on Commons but were on Flickr, in this album of 22 shots. This one is IMHO particularly interesting, the negative in terms of the aspects raised for station interior photos is that few people are visible.

What do you think of the above? --Rontombontom (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize I hadn't replied to this yet. The first Taichung station platform photo looks good at normal size, but I'm concerned the details won't be as clear as a thumbnail. I actually like the night photos at Tainan Station. For the first one, I like it a lot. (The comments actually consist of someone asking the author if they can use the photos, with the author asking "for what purpose?" while saying that he usually doesn't turn down offers.) The second photo of the station just look gorgeous, albeit with a little lens bending. :) Although few people are visible, there not necessarily a sense of emptiness which usually comes with it, which is a plus. -Multivariable (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(Still brainstorming)
On the Taichung morning photo; I checked the thumbnail look, and due to its portrait orientation, IMHO it displays big enough to show details. I now embedded it above for illustration.
Regarding the night photos, which did you refer to as "the first one"? The platform photo I linked to or the first concourse photo in the album (the one made next to the top of the escalator)?
By the way, I forgot to mention: I originally went to Flickr thinking that if it is possible to make a platform photo on the THSR platforms at Taipei or Banciao with a TRA train visible in the background, that would be the most fitting illustration in the Controversy section; but no luck finding such a photo. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the Taichung photo could work if other candidates aren't suitable. Regarding the Tainan Station photos, I meant the platform photo, but the concourse photo looks pretty good (if a little warped). For a photo of both TRA and THSR trains, I think it would be tough to come by even if you tried. The platform layout (at least at Taipei Station) makes it difficult to see past the train that's currently on the platform, though if you look really hard through train windows, you can probably tell. I think the best chance of a shot like the one you mentioned would have to be when one of the trains is entering the station while the other is already parked. -Multivariable (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Map placement dilemma[edit]

Currently, we have the geographic map in the infobox in hidden state, and the track map in the "Construction" section in default display. There is no guideline on this I can find, but from what I saw in other articles, our layout is not common: if there are both kinds of maps, usually, the track map is hidden in the infobox (indeed Template:Infobox rail line makes special mention of route maps), and the geographic map is somewhere in the first sections as larger than thumbnail size image. If we'd followed that, the geographic map could be placed right at the beginning in the "Origins" section. Then, we could also move all (ands any number of) viaduct-station-tunnel/track photos to the right, and they wouldn't potentially mess with section titles for viewers who set wide screens and small fonts.

On the other hand, what I like about the current layout is that one can look up the relative location of all sections, stations and superstructures mentioned in the "Construction" section just by glancing right. And the geographic map doesn't add much in the way of localisation to "runs along the west coast of Taiwan" in the intro sentence.

Any other opinions in this matter? --Rontombontom (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I also like the track map a lot, but there's no doubt it takes up a lot of space. In my opinion, the geographic map is great, but as you said, since this is a single high speed rail line, there's not really that much that can be gained by looking at it. I wonder what others think about this? -Multivariable (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Viaduct photo[edit]

Northern end of THSR's 157 km (98 mi) elevated section

I asked someone with better photo editing skills than mine to make another go at improving the only free image suitable as illustration, the result is to the right.

The photo was made at the Railway to Galaxy restaurant near Shetou Tonwship in Changhua County (No. 27之1號, 後路巷, 社頭鄉 彰化縣, Taiwan 511), so if any Wikipedian happens to be in the vicinity in good weather in the morning hours with a camera, it's the perfect location... --Rontombontom (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-wording the third para of the lede[edit]

A copyeditor made this of the third paragraph of the lede (minus last sentence):

Due to the financial structure involved in raising private capital for the project, during its initial years of operation, THSRC accumulated debt due to high depreciation charges and interest. In 2009, following a takeover of the company by the Taiwanese government, these financial problems were addressed by changing the method of accounting used to calculate the cost of building the line and the financing of its trains. THSRC's loans were refinanced in 2010.

The above certainly had a better flow than the original, however, the more I looked at it, the more problems I saw in terms of logic and deviation in meaning from what is summarized. I couldn't think of an easy way to edit it, so I gave up on that and mostly restored the original. For the case anyone takes a stab at another copyedit, to avoid the same meaning-changing problems, I list the main ones I saw with the above:

  • The first sentence says "due" twice, and disrupts the connection between the financial structure and the high depreciation charges and interest (the latter as consequence of the first).
  • The wording "involved in raising private capital" is too uncertain, and I think it can be misread as referring to merely getting the money from investors, whereas the original meaning was a circumscription of BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer), in which the terms set for operating the line (e.g. for how many years) also count.
  • "These" in "these financial problems were addressed" refers to both epreciation charges and interest, thus putting the refinancing into a separate sentence breaks the connection. (In the present version, I removed the year of the refinance deal and dated the government takeover rather than the change on depreciation to 2009.)
  • What changed wasn't how the construction costs were calculated, but how they were accounted for later in the annual financial reports, that is, how it was cut into tranches to be balanced against annual operating income—that's depreciation.

I also note that in the GA reviews of the article, the wikilinking of the financial terms was strongly suggested, and they are indeed less commonplace terms than say "viaduct", so I kept the wikilinking here. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining the original intents of the paragraph so that future editors can keep them in mind! -Multivariable (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I wondered why the article suddenly gets copyeditors; turns out blocked user Perseus saw the above FAC discussion and made a request. That's good for the article, especially as the current ce seems to deal with my words-to-watch fears; but I'm not sure where and how to discuss reasons for editing ce edits with the Guild of Copy Editors editors, so I just continue to comment it here.
Regarding wikilinking odd numbers: this was wikilinked after it proved ambiguous in PR, with a reviewer reading "odd" in the sense "weird". A re-phrase instead? "Odd-numbered train number" would be correct—but repetitive?
Regarding wikilinking unions: when I see "union" without "trade", I tend to think of unions like the Soviet Union, so I felt "rail union" is ambiguous too, but I may be completely mistaken (English is not my first language). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
At least in America, "union" usually refers to "trade unions" or some unspecified association of individuals/groups/companies. -Multivariable (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Rail union in the UK English can only mean a trade union - I delinked it because the average reader would know what it means. I have no objection if it goes back in, it's a minor issue ► Philg88 ◄ talk 01:27, Thursday March 10, 2011 (UTC) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I de-linked it too, as the meaning is common knowledge. I also de-linked the more common financial terms. I thought "odd numbers" and "even numbers" were pretty commonplace concepts as well. By the way, links should occur once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Therefore some terms will be linked twice. In an extremely long article, some terms will be linked again near the end. I am going to carry on with the copy edits now, so if you have any questions as to my rationale for any edits, please post them here. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! On unions, I see and submit I was completely mistaken. Regarding a rule on wikilinking in the lead and the body, where is that prescribed or (if implicit) how does it follow from the rules? Currently WP:REPEATLINK states:

In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these:

  1. where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.
  2. where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content.
  3. where the links are in a table or in a list, as each row should stand on its own.
The specific repeat-link I removed was right at the start of the body, so I thought 'long way from the first occurence' didn't apply. It's a long lede, though, did you count that as 'long way'? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am giving you the information I have gathered from previous experience working on FA material. I see it does not actually agree with the guidelind and I had not realised that until now. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

However, finally etc. question[edit]

A question to Diannaa on her edits. At several places, you removed the words "however" (usually at the start of sentences) and "finally". Was this under WP:EDITORIAL? I mean this:

Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

In one case ("THSRC declared the Eurotrain consortium its preferred bidder... However, THSRC launched a formal tender in June 1999..." in the section "Project structure"), I reverted as I'm quite certain that the relationship exists, after all, the subject of the preferred biddership and the tender were the same, and the legal consequences are described later in a whole paragraph (and in even more detail in a wikilinked main article). But I ask about two of the others.

  • In the part on driver inspections, would a "however" require a source stating that the ministry explicitely termed the company's own measures insufficient?
  • In the part on earthquakes and the emergency system, isn't there a clear connection, and wouldn't an undermining appropiate as the sources report an agreement of all parties that the system was insufficient (even if differing on what needs change)?
    I almost always remove the word "however", unless the stated outcome seems unexpected from the material that comes before. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    I see. On that basis, I would think the earthquake one is justified: the problems aren't something expected after a warning system works. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    Yes. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "finally": did you remove these because you don't think it is necessary for the text flow, or did you have some WP:OR concern in spite of the word not being listed at WP:W2W? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is another word I typically remove as being a little POV. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Also in the section on earthquakes, "state organs" changed to "officials". What was the reason? I think "officials" can be misread as including officials of operating company THSRC. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"State organs" is simply a phrase that is never used in English. If you think "officials" is ambiguous, you should change it to "government officials". ---Diannaa (Talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I considered "authorities", then checked the sources again for specifics. Although the reference to experts was by the head of a government authority (BOHSR), THSRC officials are also cited (including indirectly by the head of BOHSR); so I leave it. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Colorful table[edit]

The table of fares imparts information using only color and thus will not be acceptable for the article to pass FA. WP:Access. You will have to either get rid of the color or get rid of the table. A table of fares is probably not appropriate content for an FA article per WP:IINFO. I have left the table alone as you and your FA reviewers will be the ones to make this decision. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK... that every cell in that table is a header cell? And teh 'Train frequencies' table has extra rows and columns purely for presentational effects. Semantic mush. ;/ Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! The fare table was added by someone during the GA1 review process (I realise I noted this only on the GA1 review page only). I'd rather remove the fare table. Will do so if there are no objections.
For the 'Train frequencies' table, what would be a better way of separation? --Rontombontom (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The separation is gratuitous and only serves as an impediment to editors who might try and edit that sea of markup. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No, the separation serves to separate daily data and the corresponding sum (weekly data), resp. northbound/southbound and their sum. I now replaced these with a border parameter as in the revenues/costs table. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Deviations, a part of the WP:MOS:
  • “styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes.”
It is inappropriate to snot-up tables with such non-standard markup. The look of wikitables is a site-wide convention and that's what this table should look like. Adding inline styling only serves to deviate from the site-wide look. It also amounts to an impediment to editing by editors not skilled in css markup. wiki means 'quick', as in editing is supposed to be quick (and easy), but you're pouring non-standard goop in to these tables makes them more difficult to edit.
Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for providing the relevant guideline, but I am still not much wiser of it on how to properly edit tables, resp. what edits originated by others am I justified to remove.

First, the justification is the greater stability of site CSS and the maintenance of a uniform look, but I can't find your justification about CSS markup being unfamiliar to other users anywhere in that guideline. Indeed WP:Deviations doesn't ban CSS for uses other than tables in the accessibility guideline and even recommends it (in place of HTML), and much of Help:Table would have to be removed or complemented with strong disclaimers as currently for nested tables only; and at the tutorial Discussion page, I find just the user you refer to in an edit summary recommending inline CSS (the style="text-align:center" setting). (Also, I don't get how unfamiliar CSS code can keep other editors from editing a table. I was unfamiliar with it before I started to edit Wikipedia and this article, but that didn't prevent me from changing values or copying code for a new table row.)

Second, is there a page listing available CSS classes for Wikipedia tables? While Help:Table contains a lot of inline styling options and some style classes, I can't find a full list or link to a page with such a list on that page or WP:ACCESS or the data tables tutorial.

Third, while I do find the "gratuitous" word in the guideline (where it says deviations are acceptable "where they create a semantic distinction"), it doesn't define what counts as gratuitous, nor does it say who gets to determine what is gratuitous. Specifically:

  • Is there and what is the proper way to right-align only the columns of a table with numbers in them (to the same decimal precision)?
  • What about right-aligning numbers in colspan-merged columns? That was the purpose of the setting of the right padding in em units which you removed. User RexxS makes a specific recommendation for inline setting of padding in the Discussion linked above. I note that for the purposes of accessibility, for viewers with screen readers or without CSS support, this setting would not produce incomprehensible output.
  • Is there and what is the proper way to set off rows (columns) containing the sum of rows (columns) before them? Help:Table at least explicitly allows different-coloured 1px solid borders.

--Rontombontom (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The orginial article mix too much complicate, partly, old or even wrong information, which will mislead the reader. From the constructioan phase to now operation, High Speed Rail has its totally difference image in Taiwan public. If it possible, I thank this article really need rewrite again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang0857 (talkcontribs) 10:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taiwan High Speed Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taiwan High Speed Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taiwan High Speed Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)