![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Busan Metro Line 1. |
Just a reminder that Edit summaries are supposed to be confined to what the editor did and should not be used to talk back and forth from one editor to another. Thanks. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
HanSangYoon prefers to have a list of stations in the infobox. However, this duplicates the list of stations that's already in the article, and gives more detail. He objected to the route map that gave the physical layout of the line because it showed stations that weren't properly part of the route. I copied and edited that image to only include the current stations, but he removed that as well. Which image do other people think should be used? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This may seem obvious, but as much as it's obvious, my bravery to defend my stance is strong; I'm against replacing the route template with the image map. I see SarekOfVulcan has cut off the northern extension rumor of the line; however, I wonder where he got the image, since I'm certain that image wasn't originally his (I saw the same image years ago). What's more, he must've used paint to cut off the northern section; I wonder how he was able to go this from the beginning?
Now the main reason: As ColonialGrid stated above, the image is limited to a lot of things. I agree, the route template isn't at its fullest yet (which is missing of the county they go by, rivers and borders, etc.) but what the route map does show right now is of the number of the stations, aboveground/underground status, and later on, we can add on the things it's missing (but to note, the entire subway system in South Korea does not intersect with commercial roads, like LA does, so we can't add roads). This also means the image has less of a functionality than the route map. And to note, other railway stations such as Los Angeles Metro, London Underground, and even the Korean Wikipages of their own country's railway all shows route templates. It really isn't reasonable to put up an image instead of route templates. HanSangYoon ( talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd still like to hear Terramorphous's opinion on this. However, I think I agree, in general, with ColonialGrid on this: but the problem isn't this article in particular on that score – it's many of the Asian "rail" lines articles, that have both an expansive "stations table" and an expansive "Route Map" (which is usually in the Infobox) – oftentimes both together seems like overkill in these articles. -- IJBall ( talk) 21:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Busan Metro Line 1. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Busan Metro Line 1. |
Just a reminder that Edit summaries are supposed to be confined to what the editor did and should not be used to talk back and forth from one editor to another. Thanks. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
HanSangYoon prefers to have a list of stations in the infobox. However, this duplicates the list of stations that's already in the article, and gives more detail. He objected to the route map that gave the physical layout of the line because it showed stations that weren't properly part of the route. I copied and edited that image to only include the current stations, but he removed that as well. Which image do other people think should be used? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This may seem obvious, but as much as it's obvious, my bravery to defend my stance is strong; I'm against replacing the route template with the image map. I see SarekOfVulcan has cut off the northern extension rumor of the line; however, I wonder where he got the image, since I'm certain that image wasn't originally his (I saw the same image years ago). What's more, he must've used paint to cut off the northern section; I wonder how he was able to go this from the beginning?
Now the main reason: As ColonialGrid stated above, the image is limited to a lot of things. I agree, the route template isn't at its fullest yet (which is missing of the county they go by, rivers and borders, etc.) but what the route map does show right now is of the number of the stations, aboveground/underground status, and later on, we can add on the things it's missing (but to note, the entire subway system in South Korea does not intersect with commercial roads, like LA does, so we can't add roads). This also means the image has less of a functionality than the route map. And to note, other railway stations such as Los Angeles Metro, London Underground, and even the Korean Wikipages of their own country's railway all shows route templates. It really isn't reasonable to put up an image instead of route templates. HanSangYoon ( talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd still like to hear Terramorphous's opinion on this. However, I think I agree, in general, with ColonialGrid on this: but the problem isn't this article in particular on that score – it's many of the Asian "rail" lines articles, that have both an expansive "stations table" and an expansive "Route Map" (which is usually in the Infobox) – oftentimes both together seems like overkill in these articles. -- IJBall ( talk) 21:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Busan Metro Line 1. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)