Template talk:Urban rail transit in China
|WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit / By country series||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject China||(Rated Template-class)|
This is NOT a series of anything...why should it put at the top of the page? Frankly, this template gives me an odd sense of deja vu...does it look like the template of geography of Hong Kong? The logo does not look good... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Transportation in mainland China is an article on mainland China.. and I won't agree with the coverage of this template to cover Hong Kong and Macao. Transport policies within the two special administrative regions are not the business of the Central People's Government in Beijing. And in fact this template is redundant because category:metros in Asia already served part of the purpose of this template. — Instantnood 08:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- If HK is included in this template, I think Taiwan must be included. — User:mmlcs36 19:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- As this template does not provide important info to any of the articles in which it is included - it is just a collection of links - the template should be placed as a footer in each article, not at the top.
Re  - The scope of this template is ambiguous and controversial, and is not a series of anything. More important is that this template can readily be up-merged to the category. — Instantnood 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the template is perfectly legit, however, it should really be reformatted as a footer. It is not an article series, but there are numerous footers linking similar groups of articles. Circeus 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This template should be "Rapid transit in People's Republic of China" rather than "Rapid transit in China." The term China can be controversial. The long discussion at the China page shows exactly that, and linking to China certainly doesn't help. It is for the same reason that we have articles such as Transport in the People's Republic of China and Rapid transit in the People's Republic of China, rather than Transport in China and Rapid transit in China. And because this is a template of Rapid transit in People's Republic of China, the non-PRC systems are removed. Antonius (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not put systems of different municipalities in brackets.
I saw what user:MetroDreams did and I second his move. Before there used to be two ways of using brackets, one is to put systems within one municipality in brackets; the other is to put systems within two or more adjacent municipalities into brackets. This is confusing and not necessary--people who are not familiar with Chinese geography will deem Guangfo as one city instead of two by inferring from the usage of brackets in other cities like Shanghai or Beijing which is with multiple systems but under only one municipality.Howchou (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Separate LRT MRT and commuter rail
The template is getting too messy we should separate the "MRT&LRT" into a separate LRT/tram section. Also possibly a commuter rail section as shanghai metro line 22 is opening soon and I think Guangzhou–Zhuhai ICL and Chengdu–Dujiangyan ICL are very commuter/regional rail like. Steve chiu (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
China or PRC?
According to Wikipedia itself, "rapid transit" means "a passenger transport system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency, and grade separation from other traffic," which generally equals "metro" or "subway." Whereas this article included systems other than metro, such as commuter rail and tram, which are not typically rapid transit. I suggest that we either move this page to "Urban rail transit in China" since the term urban rail transit includes all these systems, or delete those systems other than metro from this article. --Howchou (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
All six regions separated or not?
The edit I made on 11:26, 25 Dec 2015 UTC+8 categorised the metro systems in China in 4 groups, in which items from the Northeast & North and Northwest & Southwest regions are combined due to smaller number of items in said regions. While User:Jiangyu911 stated in 16:21 UTC+8 edit that all these items should be grouped in terms of regions of China or simply stacked altogether, I argue that it is not necessary to do so, since this whole categorisation stuff is used for better readability, thus it is no need to create so many groups when 4 groups is clarified enough for indexing and browsing purpose. Best regards. --SilAshkenazi (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @User:JoeenNc I think first, the number of metro system in China is still not so huge, so no necessary to divide into 4 or 6 category at all, look at the Template:Underground rapid transit in the European Union, there are more than 40 items,and are still not divided into regions. Second, if you insist to divide into regions, it should be 6, not 4. Of course the number in N, NE, NW and SW is NOW relatively smaller, but in the future the number can expand a lot.I can argue the 6 regions of China is more accepted than 4 or less, after all it is the well accepted geographical regions, is it not better readable for readers to know if Chengdu Metro is in SW or NW. Third, if you still insist, i advice let make it West China instead of NW and SW. Jiangyu911 (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Jiangyu911, well let's talk through your argument one by one: 1. Your example of the EU template is really not convincing, its poor readability is exactly the reason why we should group them; 2. I agree that the number of metro systems might grow bigger in the said four regions, but don't forget the number grows in the other two regions too, and most likely even faster, since the bigger population and more populous cities, thus we should group them into 4 groups instead of 6, before the situation actually happened, as for the Chengdu case, it's exactly the reason why we shouldn't divide the west into SW and NW, because many people simply can't tell which region a city falls into; 3. I don't see the reason why we should not, it is totally okay for me to merge NW and SW into West China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeenNc (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)