![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As per the definition above, Japan's JR East is a bona fide metro. Let's say it is also a bona fide metro, in addition to its long distance and Shinkansen routes.I am digging for metro info.
This govermment site lists the total JR route (I assume) length as 20,003.3 km, excluding Shinkansen Lines, it is 17633.7 km. Using that might be a bit unfair despite everything being connected to Tokyo, somehow. That source gives the JR non-Shinkansen network line for the Tokyo Prefecture alone as 345.0 km. As per other examples on this list, this would be likewise unfair. I am inclined to use the route length for what is known as the " Greater Tokyo Area," in this case Tokyo plus surrounding Saitama. Chiba, Kanagawa and Niigata. Adding up the non-Shinkansen route length of the JR in the Greater Tokyo Area would yield a total route length of 2,237 km. Is this what we should use? I know, routine calculations are allowed, but I don't want to be blamed for Original Research. Opinions? BsBsBs ( talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the route length? BsBsBs ( talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
JR fits the commuter rail's definition perfectly and has always been in the commuter rail list at Wikipedia. Even the Japan Railway and Transport Review says they are commuter trains: http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr09/pdf/photo.pdf. A commuter rail is "a transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas.
Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by:
It does not include:
Intercity rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Predominantly commuter service means that for any given trip segment (i.e., distance between any two stations), more than 50 percent of the average daily ridership travels on the train at least three times a week. Only the predominantly commuter service portion of an intercity route is eligible for inclusion when determining commuter rail (CR) route miles." Source: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm Massyparcer ( talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"Yes. No more or less of UITP's definition. It is the only internationally-agreed consensus from the authorities that we have. Otherwise, we're risking delving ourselves into original research without reliable, official sources."
"I agree with this editor's view that we need a list of "integrated, multi-modal SYSTEMS as they present themselves to the customer/rider."
To be fair, allow me to point out that such a SYSTEM, applied to Tokyo, would yield more than 4,000 km. BsBsBs ( talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, if you're not me, then I suggest you to refrain from pretending to know how I think. Also, please refrain from quoting my non-final judgement and use that as an excuse to portray me in the way you want. I haven't contradicted myself but made sure that we must distinguish between commuter rails and metros because I knew people would put commuter rails under metro solely on UITP's definition. I haven't overlooked that there are commuter type of traffic on metros, this is something I agree. I haven't tried to disqualify as you say - I have only applied the official definition from the USDT to JR. Just because there are many EMU cars and it has a high service frequency (which is not true for all JR lines btw) does not mean it's a metro. There are other criteria, including not having multi-trip tickets and specific station to station fares. By that definition, JR is a commuter rail because it uses completely different fare structures for even its own lines - It doesn't matter whether it is counted by distance or zones, it must be uniformly and seamlessly applied to all lines under JR. But that's unfortunately not the case. Only Tokyo Metro and Toei are. As you said, we can't have regional rail entering the metro and exiting as a regional rail - This is a commuter rail and UITP's definition makes clear that we cannot have track sharing going on since their definition says that it must be on "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". This was raised numerous times by previous editors. We haven't created a conclusion C but used USDT as an additional reference to guide us in separating metros from commuter rails. The primary source used as we have agreed is the UITP. I would appreciate if you would stop linking me with Seoul because I have made clear multiple times that I'm only interested in applying criteria from reliable and official sources, just like you probably are. If by multi-modal systems you mean mixing commuter rail and metros, we have always been against this idea on this article for a very long time because it is a List of metro systems and there is a separate List of commuter rails where JR has always been. Massyparcer ( talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We can argue this for many years more, and we won't get anywhere without a clear an unambiguous list definition. Please enter your proposal for a new list definition. You can change the name of the list and the first two sentences of the article. Not more than two sentences are allowed for this exercise. (More will be added later.)
Please sign your entries. Please do not debate any entries just yet. If you don't like an entry, write a better one. Definitions must be sourced.
I start with the current status.
List of metro systems
The International Association of Public Transport (L’Union Internationale des Transports Publics, or UITP) defines metro systems as urban passenger transport systems, "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic." [1] This is a list of Metros according to this definition.
BsBsBs ( talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The refined inclusion criteria according to the 2011 UITP definition for “Metros” are expected to attract many new entries to this list. This necessitates a little housekeeping. Possibly a lot.
Whatever we do, it must comply with WP regs. Remember: Consensus cannot repeal WP rules. (At least not the consensus of a few editors here.) Remember: “Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.”
Forgot anything? Please discuss. There are many points that should be discussed, and not just by one or two editors. BsBsBs ( talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs ( talk) 18:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@IJBall:
The guiding definition for "Metro" is by the UITP, not by us. We may find the definition flawed, too broad, bad, confusing - but we may not write a new definition, at least not here. "Metro" is only defined by the UITP, and the UITP clearly does not use Light/heavy/commuter rail as part of their definition.
The term "commuter rail" does not exist in most parts of the world. "Light" and "Heavy" rail mean different things in different places of the world. That's (I guess) why the UITP doesn't go there.
In case we want to go there nonetheless, as inadvisable as it may be: If you read the definitions carefully, you will note that neither the NTD nor the APTA say that a Metro cannot be Light or commuter.
Both the NTD and the APTA simply define "commuter" - that's it. They don't say a metro can't be commuter. With a hairsplitting interpretation - and there certainly would be no shortage of split hairs around here - it could even be said that the APTA calls commuter rail a metro. I don't say it, it is irrelevant.
All define "light" (slightly differently) - that's it, nobody says Metro can't be light. The APTA says Heavy can also be "called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail." It doesn't say Metro MUST be heavy. "Heavy can be Metro" does not equal "Metro cannot be Light." There is wisdom in outlawing OR at WP, as painful as it sometimes may be.
HOWEVER, both the APTA and NTD are irrelevant when it comes to defining what a "Metro" is. They have not done it - and even if they would have at some point past, they would now be trumped by an international definition in an international context. It is perfectly imaginable that the UITP asked its many members around the world how they would define "Metro." After all, this is how standard-writing gets started. And it is perfectly imaginable that many UITP members around the world replied: "Commuter rail? Heavy? Light? What are you talking about?" The APTA is a member of the UITP, and as such, they are part of the consensus that was reached and that was papered in 2011.
Bringing ambiguous light/heavy/commuter back in play after the UITP doesn't touch it, and after their definition - again, the only authoritative definition we could find - clearly does not mention light/heavy/commuter, simply would mean a frontal collision with everything that is holy at Wikipedia.
That the UITP definition is very broad is agreed. That it will mean a flood of wannabe Metros is agreed. We won't change this by fudging this list.
I agree with you that this might mean a possible name change to "List of metropolitan rapid transit systems." Which is a completely different matter. On a global scale, the "Metro" paradigm appears to be shifting towards "metropolitan rapid transit," whether we like it or not. This is not what I want, this is simply something I observe.
There are some other options than renaming the list. If there is consensus (by a few more) to ditch this one, then we can start a map exercise and game a few options. If not, we have to play the cards which we have been dealt. BsBsBs ( talk) 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"There's nothing wrong with using UITP's definition, but the 2011 document he showed us is intended for "the European Standardisation Bodies in order to develop standards for voluntary use." So the standards are for the Europeans, excluding Americans or Asians. And the standards haven't been developed yet, and even if they are in the future, it's for voluntary use. So it's not really a holy bible that are going to be followed by all standardization bodies. Some can choose to opt out. We need an UITP definition that is intended for America, Europe, Asia and rest of world. Another concern is that the definition is somewhat too loose and non-specific- Wikilawyers will take advantage of that and try to fit in anything that fits the 2011 UITP's definition, even intercity rail or people movers. And the 2011 document says that a metro should be intended to serve local/urban/suburban areas, for which no definition is given. How would you define airport or theme parks? This creates room for original research. So in my opinion, there are some flaws with the 2011 document that BsBsBs showed us."
To be frank, the whole reason this started is because a new, overly inclusive criteria has been put put forward by an editor. How that new criteria is developed is anyone guess but I am pretty sure everyone here knows the ultimate motive behind this criteria. As I have repeatedly warned last year and January of this year:
"Now half of CityRail Sydney, Metro Trains Melbourne, Metro-North Railroad, SEPTA Regional Rail and every single central commuter tunnel in Europe is metro now?"
As IJBall and Ymblanter have pointed out the new criteria is overly inclusive. As BsBsBs demonstrated by flooding the list with "new metros" based on new criteria that are generally not accepted as being rapid transit. This really shows that is new criteria does not hold water, is inconsistent, and erodes the list's credibility. In addition it also faults of being synthesis, original research and arguably is used to push a certain POV. My fix? Put the list back to what it originally was, cited and consistent. I have argued what I needed to argue 2 months ago. The fact that the new criteria is crumbling before the creators eyes after a short lived 1 month is proof that is not the right direction to define a metro. Terramorphous ( talk) 05:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Terramorphous: As stated repeatedly, but possibly drowned by walls of ever-changing text, the editors of this list must decide what they want this list to be. Once decided, they must communicate clearly and unambiguously what this list is. After one, or at max two sentences, a complete newcomer must understand what to expect from this list, what it includes and what it excludes.
If the following looks like TL:NR, stop here, and get to work on a clear, unambiguous, verifiable, self-explanatory one/two sentence list definition.
Still with me? Ok, in that case:
There are many options. I am open to anything that makes sense, from a list of subways/undergrounds/tubes, all the way to a list of rapid transit systems. Should editors decide to turn this into a list of Metro hypermarkets, or a list of rock bands called “Metro,” I will support it. What I will not support is a mess that invites constant edit warring and drama, simply because it is not clear what this list is.
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists tells us what to do:
The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:
Lastly, and in my eyes most importantly, the guidance essay says:
Does this sound familiar?
Of course, this is easier said than done, as many lists on Wikipedia show. It is hard work to get to a clear, unambiguous list definition that is obvious to both the readers and the editors around the world. Always test your list definition with extreme and borderline cases. If you have the slightest doubt on how to handle them, the definition needs more work.
Writing list definitions may not be for people who just started editing. It requires an ability to think things through, to communicate clearly, and to grasp complicated concepts such as WP:NOR. When I started editing here, I was completely shocked by it. Where I came from, I was asked to do my own, in-depth research, and not to copy anything from others. “Unoriginal research” was an invective, not a guiding principle. It took me many years to get used to it, and editors who have problems with it have my sympathy.
Just as one example: If we have three authoritative sources for a definition, and if we don't quite like any of them, we then can't take a little from A, add a little from B and C and say they all defined it as D. This would be textbook OR, and it would be fraudulent. I don't mind if we do it in a blog, or if a magazine does it, but at WP, we absolutely can't.
If we have three definitions, then WP gives us these choices:
That's basically it. Of course, we can toss all three definitions and define a Metro as whatever we like. Tomorrow, we will have a big "Citation needed" tag, and next week, we will have a huge edit war. Basically, we will have a situation like now. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@ IJBall: It had NONE. The NTD and APTA cites are no stress-resistant sources. When I came on, the UITP link was dead. Having lived for a long time is no proof that you are still alive. I found the UITP link in Google cache and offered it up in talk. Knowing well that Google will be challenged, I dug further, spent a lot of time nobody else want to spend and finally found what now is the article's prime source. Without that, the link would still be dead. The UITP definition edit has survived the only real test of a consensus having in fact been reached: It was confirmed by other editors’ edits, the cite was improved by other editors. The fact that the new definition offers more leeway was used by one editor to raise track length and station count of Seoul. The higher numbers quickly found their way into other lists at WP. Quite puzzlingly, the same editor who made those edits now appears to vehemently argue against the UITP definition he had used to substantiate the edits. Or maybe not, I have given up on trying to find out.
Of course, a consensus can change. If someone would find a newer UITP source where they have changed their minds and say that Metro equals Heavy Rail, that it is not Metro when it has level crossings, other trains on their tracks, worse than 10 minute service intervals, multi trip tickets, and station to station fares, then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, because it would settle many years of holy wars.
Please correct me where I am wrong in the following:
If I would have to argue for the other side in this grand debate, I would quickly forget the APTA source. It is not helpful.
I am somewhat of a WP:OR fundamentalist. As I said, I had to get used to it, and I learned. If “A can also be called b, c, d, or e” and I construe this into “it only is A if it is b” then I would commit a textbook case of WP:OR. I know, some have a hard time understanding this, set theory is not for everyone. The best advice I have been given in regards to OR is that “if it needs judgment, it probably is OR.” Currently, new entries or deletions of this list are hugely judgment-driven, they are considered by feel, not by facts.
I reiterate what I said before: I am not married to the current solution. It clearly is suboptimal. It appears to make a lot of editors unhappy. I have offered many new options. There probably are more. They should be discussed. Which is more worthwhile than these prayer-mill discussions.
I have listed above what Wikipedia demands from a list. Are we going to live up to WP standards? BsBsBs ( talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The intro is derailing. The common reader, and we write this for the reader, has absolutely no idea what we are talking about.
To force a rewrite, I had to delete:
"The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail [1] [2] and commuter rail, [1] [2] is not always clear, and while UITP only makes distinctions between "metros" and "light rail", [3] the U.S.'s APTA and FTA distinguish all three modes. [1] [2] "
I could not possibly edit this, my head is still spinning. What three modes???? What is the poet trying to tell us here? Please spend your energy and writing talents on a better list definition, and please don't allow wikilawyering to pollute articles. This is an encyclopedia, not the fine print of a car lease. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
To move this discussion into a more productive area (something I think we can all agree upon,) I have assembled this table of definitions of terms that were heavily used in the article and the attendant discussion. They are from the definition chapters of the most cited sources, to wit:
For those who are not familiar with these organizations, the UITP International Association of Public Transport is an international organization “for public transport authorities and operators, policy decision-makers, scientific institutes and the public transport supply and service industry.” The APTA is a national American Association. The FTA is an arm of the American government.
To state what should be obvious, but what is frequently overlooked: Of the three only the UITP defines “Metro.”
If we would apply dangerous reverse logic, then we could go further into other models of transport. To our great surprise, we would hear from the APTA:
And
We could be tempted to conclude that according to the APTA, a Metro can be both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail, especially when elsewhere in the world [3] [4] [5] [6], and also in Passenger rail terminology, "Metro" and " Metropolitan rail" are used interchangeably. Which makes the issue more complicated than it already is. To make the confusion perfect, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, operator of the Berlin U-Bahn (or metro) now has "The 'MetroNetz' - a tram and bus-based core city network not to be confused with the underground system." [7]
Term | UITP Recommended Standard | NTD Glossary | APTA Glossary |
"Metro" | “(I) Metros: UGT systems operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic. They are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surfacelevel but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible. In different parts of the world Metro systems are also known as the underground, the subway or the tube. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.” | Undefined | Not separately specified (see: Heavy rail) |
"Commuter Rail" | Undefined |
A transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance traveloperating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. |
Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail) characterized by an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by multi-trip tickets, specific station to station fares, railroad employment practices and usually only one or two stations in the central business district. Intercity rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Most service is provided on routes of current or former freight railroads. |
"Light Rail" | Light Rail is defined as a UGT system operated in parts of the system not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, and in parts of the system with segregated right-of-way. The segregation may include some sections of line where inadvertent access is not possible. |
Light Rail (LR)(mode) |
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps. |
"Heavy Rail" | Undefined |
Heavy Rail (HR) |
Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading. |
"Trams"/"Streetcars" |
(II) Trams: UGT systems not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, which share their right of way with general road and/or pedestrian traffic and are therefore embedded in their relevant national road traffic legislation (highway codes and specific adaptations). |
Streetcar rail: This mode is for rail transit systems operating entire routes predominantly on streets in mixed-traffic. This service typically operates with single-car trains powered by overhead catenaries and with frequent stops. | Not separately specified (see: Light rail) |
"Local rail systems" | Such systems connect city centres with their suburban hinterland or regional local centres. Such systems are operated on rights of way which are basically segregated from general road and/or pedestrian traffic and/or which can be declared by law as independent from the public environment even if they are not segregated by location, form of construction or appropriate measures. For historical reasons they might be strongly influenced by conventional railway parameters and their operations procedures. | Undefined | Undefined. |
BsBsBs (
talk)
10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors will excuse me if I will ignore certain disruptive comments and commenters until sanity, civility, and rudimentary standards of logic return. In this case, a lack of opposition does not imply agreement. Wikipedia rules forbid a synthesis of published material, and I am on record that I oppose any such synthesis now and in the future. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm really glad that finally a more productive section has been opened. Bsbsbs, your opening of this section is very grateful. However, I don't think separation using Metro would help in this discussion. As we've discussed along, many countries each have distinct definitions. The only definition we could agree on would be physical components, such as # of people transported in an hour when the service has 100% congestion , size of metro cars (in volume) or more. Different organizations have so different definitions, and even in the resource you've provided, the resources don't provide definitions for all terms, leading to possible ambiguity among the terms (As lack of definitions of some terms would make the defining organizations to include that term in other predefined terms) And about the talk below (STATION) I think we should apply same standards here. My opinion is to count physically connected (that is, when passengers transfer, he doesn't need to go through free area - only passing thru paid areas) transfer stations as one, and others as two. I know it contradicts with almost all system admin's counting methods (as they would either count all transfer stations as one, or as multiples) However, this would be a better way to converge the counting criteria. So, for example, in Seoul system, Seoul station would be counted as 3 stations as there are 1+4 line station, GyeongUi station, and A'REX station. Noryangjin station would be counted as 2 stations for now, as there aren't any transfer way (but as one station soon after) 222.101.9.92 ( talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor alleges that I “EXPLICITLY DELETED WHAT [the editor] POSTED" (emphasis not mine.)
I did no such thing. I have been trying, to the extent humanly possible on this talk page, to ignore the editor and her incoherent ramblings, which have been contaminating this talk page for six weeks now. I would “CENSOR” (emphasis not mine) this verbal pollution no more than I would curate my neighbor’s septic tank.
What I had done was inform the editors that I had amended the inclusion criteria to the extent that “metros with separate operators are counted separately in this list.”
I then told Epicgenius to “keep digging.”
When I inserted my two comments, it was done with considerable trouble. Lately, is has become increasingly hard to insert a comment without getting an edit conflict. The cause appears to be the alleging editor herself. As the history shows this talk page has been taken over by one editor, who appears to edit with a B-52.
These are today's stats of this talk page, likely already severely outdated when you read it:
User | Edits today | Perc. | Edits total |
Massyparcer | 109 | 78% | 898 |
IJBall | 11 | 8% | 182 |
BsBsBs | 9 | 7% | 134 |
Epicgenius | 5 | 4% | 36 |
Terramorphous | 3 | 2% | 95 |
Lowercase sigmabot III | 1 | 1% | 8 |
222.101.9.92 | 1 | 1% | 1 |
Total | 139 | 3170 |
My edits were bracketed by Massyparcer’s carpet-bombing. Apparently, even the Wikipedia computer can no longer keep up with Massyparcer. If it appears that I removed any of the editor’s effluence, then she is wrong. If she continues her allegations, then I have no other choice than to ask for a formal investigation into this matter, as inane as this may be.
However, I also see that the editor is making threats. Apparently, in her study of the talk page guidelines she not only missed the part that frowns on continuous editing of one own's comments. She also did not see the part that says “Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.”
But anyway, having been threatened by an editor who already has considerable ANI experience, I better collect my material. BsBsBs ( talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"This is my final warning to BsBsBs: If your disruptive edits don't stop right here, we have no choice but to let the admins deal with your highly disruptive behaviour based on the very strong evidence above." [8]. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Trademark Massyparcer. I resume my previous posture and ignore her. Recommend same. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary...Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others.
— WP:AGF
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As per the definition above, Japan's JR East is a bona fide metro. Let's say it is also a bona fide metro, in addition to its long distance and Shinkansen routes.I am digging for metro info.
This govermment site lists the total JR route (I assume) length as 20,003.3 km, excluding Shinkansen Lines, it is 17633.7 km. Using that might be a bit unfair despite everything being connected to Tokyo, somehow. That source gives the JR non-Shinkansen network line for the Tokyo Prefecture alone as 345.0 km. As per other examples on this list, this would be likewise unfair. I am inclined to use the route length for what is known as the " Greater Tokyo Area," in this case Tokyo plus surrounding Saitama. Chiba, Kanagawa and Niigata. Adding up the non-Shinkansen route length of the JR in the Greater Tokyo Area would yield a total route length of 2,237 km. Is this what we should use? I know, routine calculations are allowed, but I don't want to be blamed for Original Research. Opinions? BsBsBs ( talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the route length? BsBsBs ( talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
JR fits the commuter rail's definition perfectly and has always been in the commuter rail list at Wikipedia. Even the Japan Railway and Transport Review says they are commuter trains: http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr09/pdf/photo.pdf. A commuter rail is "a transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas.
Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by:
It does not include:
Intercity rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Predominantly commuter service means that for any given trip segment (i.e., distance between any two stations), more than 50 percent of the average daily ridership travels on the train at least three times a week. Only the predominantly commuter service portion of an intercity route is eligible for inclusion when determining commuter rail (CR) route miles." Source: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm Massyparcer ( talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"Yes. No more or less of UITP's definition. It is the only internationally-agreed consensus from the authorities that we have. Otherwise, we're risking delving ourselves into original research without reliable, official sources."
"I agree with this editor's view that we need a list of "integrated, multi-modal SYSTEMS as they present themselves to the customer/rider."
To be fair, allow me to point out that such a SYSTEM, applied to Tokyo, would yield more than 4,000 km. BsBsBs ( talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, if you're not me, then I suggest you to refrain from pretending to know how I think. Also, please refrain from quoting my non-final judgement and use that as an excuse to portray me in the way you want. I haven't contradicted myself but made sure that we must distinguish between commuter rails and metros because I knew people would put commuter rails under metro solely on UITP's definition. I haven't overlooked that there are commuter type of traffic on metros, this is something I agree. I haven't tried to disqualify as you say - I have only applied the official definition from the USDT to JR. Just because there are many EMU cars and it has a high service frequency (which is not true for all JR lines btw) does not mean it's a metro. There are other criteria, including not having multi-trip tickets and specific station to station fares. By that definition, JR is a commuter rail because it uses completely different fare structures for even its own lines - It doesn't matter whether it is counted by distance or zones, it must be uniformly and seamlessly applied to all lines under JR. But that's unfortunately not the case. Only Tokyo Metro and Toei are. As you said, we can't have regional rail entering the metro and exiting as a regional rail - This is a commuter rail and UITP's definition makes clear that we cannot have track sharing going on since their definition says that it must be on "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". This was raised numerous times by previous editors. We haven't created a conclusion C but used USDT as an additional reference to guide us in separating metros from commuter rails. The primary source used as we have agreed is the UITP. I would appreciate if you would stop linking me with Seoul because I have made clear multiple times that I'm only interested in applying criteria from reliable and official sources, just like you probably are. If by multi-modal systems you mean mixing commuter rail and metros, we have always been against this idea on this article for a very long time because it is a List of metro systems and there is a separate List of commuter rails where JR has always been. Massyparcer ( talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We can argue this for many years more, and we won't get anywhere without a clear an unambiguous list definition. Please enter your proposal for a new list definition. You can change the name of the list and the first two sentences of the article. Not more than two sentences are allowed for this exercise. (More will be added later.)
Please sign your entries. Please do not debate any entries just yet. If you don't like an entry, write a better one. Definitions must be sourced.
I start with the current status.
List of metro systems
The International Association of Public Transport (L’Union Internationale des Transports Publics, or UITP) defines metro systems as urban passenger transport systems, "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic." [1] This is a list of Metros according to this definition.
BsBsBs ( talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The refined inclusion criteria according to the 2011 UITP definition for “Metros” are expected to attract many new entries to this list. This necessitates a little housekeeping. Possibly a lot.
Whatever we do, it must comply with WP regs. Remember: Consensus cannot repeal WP rules. (At least not the consensus of a few editors here.) Remember: “Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.”
Forgot anything? Please discuss. There are many points that should be discussed, and not just by one or two editors. BsBsBs ( talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs ( talk) 18:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@IJBall:
The guiding definition for "Metro" is by the UITP, not by us. We may find the definition flawed, too broad, bad, confusing - but we may not write a new definition, at least not here. "Metro" is only defined by the UITP, and the UITP clearly does not use Light/heavy/commuter rail as part of their definition.
The term "commuter rail" does not exist in most parts of the world. "Light" and "Heavy" rail mean different things in different places of the world. That's (I guess) why the UITP doesn't go there.
In case we want to go there nonetheless, as inadvisable as it may be: If you read the definitions carefully, you will note that neither the NTD nor the APTA say that a Metro cannot be Light or commuter.
Both the NTD and the APTA simply define "commuter" - that's it. They don't say a metro can't be commuter. With a hairsplitting interpretation - and there certainly would be no shortage of split hairs around here - it could even be said that the APTA calls commuter rail a metro. I don't say it, it is irrelevant.
All define "light" (slightly differently) - that's it, nobody says Metro can't be light. The APTA says Heavy can also be "called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail." It doesn't say Metro MUST be heavy. "Heavy can be Metro" does not equal "Metro cannot be Light." There is wisdom in outlawing OR at WP, as painful as it sometimes may be.
HOWEVER, both the APTA and NTD are irrelevant when it comes to defining what a "Metro" is. They have not done it - and even if they would have at some point past, they would now be trumped by an international definition in an international context. It is perfectly imaginable that the UITP asked its many members around the world how they would define "Metro." After all, this is how standard-writing gets started. And it is perfectly imaginable that many UITP members around the world replied: "Commuter rail? Heavy? Light? What are you talking about?" The APTA is a member of the UITP, and as such, they are part of the consensus that was reached and that was papered in 2011.
Bringing ambiguous light/heavy/commuter back in play after the UITP doesn't touch it, and after their definition - again, the only authoritative definition we could find - clearly does not mention light/heavy/commuter, simply would mean a frontal collision with everything that is holy at Wikipedia.
That the UITP definition is very broad is agreed. That it will mean a flood of wannabe Metros is agreed. We won't change this by fudging this list.
I agree with you that this might mean a possible name change to "List of metropolitan rapid transit systems." Which is a completely different matter. On a global scale, the "Metro" paradigm appears to be shifting towards "metropolitan rapid transit," whether we like it or not. This is not what I want, this is simply something I observe.
There are some other options than renaming the list. If there is consensus (by a few more) to ditch this one, then we can start a map exercise and game a few options. If not, we have to play the cards which we have been dealt. BsBsBs ( talk) 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"There's nothing wrong with using UITP's definition, but the 2011 document he showed us is intended for "the European Standardisation Bodies in order to develop standards for voluntary use." So the standards are for the Europeans, excluding Americans or Asians. And the standards haven't been developed yet, and even if they are in the future, it's for voluntary use. So it's not really a holy bible that are going to be followed by all standardization bodies. Some can choose to opt out. We need an UITP definition that is intended for America, Europe, Asia and rest of world. Another concern is that the definition is somewhat too loose and non-specific- Wikilawyers will take advantage of that and try to fit in anything that fits the 2011 UITP's definition, even intercity rail or people movers. And the 2011 document says that a metro should be intended to serve local/urban/suburban areas, for which no definition is given. How would you define airport or theme parks? This creates room for original research. So in my opinion, there are some flaws with the 2011 document that BsBsBs showed us."
To be frank, the whole reason this started is because a new, overly inclusive criteria has been put put forward by an editor. How that new criteria is developed is anyone guess but I am pretty sure everyone here knows the ultimate motive behind this criteria. As I have repeatedly warned last year and January of this year:
"Now half of CityRail Sydney, Metro Trains Melbourne, Metro-North Railroad, SEPTA Regional Rail and every single central commuter tunnel in Europe is metro now?"
As IJBall and Ymblanter have pointed out the new criteria is overly inclusive. As BsBsBs demonstrated by flooding the list with "new metros" based on new criteria that are generally not accepted as being rapid transit. This really shows that is new criteria does not hold water, is inconsistent, and erodes the list's credibility. In addition it also faults of being synthesis, original research and arguably is used to push a certain POV. My fix? Put the list back to what it originally was, cited and consistent. I have argued what I needed to argue 2 months ago. The fact that the new criteria is crumbling before the creators eyes after a short lived 1 month is proof that is not the right direction to define a metro. Terramorphous ( talk) 05:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Terramorphous: As stated repeatedly, but possibly drowned by walls of ever-changing text, the editors of this list must decide what they want this list to be. Once decided, they must communicate clearly and unambiguously what this list is. After one, or at max two sentences, a complete newcomer must understand what to expect from this list, what it includes and what it excludes.
If the following looks like TL:NR, stop here, and get to work on a clear, unambiguous, verifiable, self-explanatory one/two sentence list definition.
Still with me? Ok, in that case:
There are many options. I am open to anything that makes sense, from a list of subways/undergrounds/tubes, all the way to a list of rapid transit systems. Should editors decide to turn this into a list of Metro hypermarkets, or a list of rock bands called “Metro,” I will support it. What I will not support is a mess that invites constant edit warring and drama, simply because it is not clear what this list is.
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists tells us what to do:
The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:
Lastly, and in my eyes most importantly, the guidance essay says:
Does this sound familiar?
Of course, this is easier said than done, as many lists on Wikipedia show. It is hard work to get to a clear, unambiguous list definition that is obvious to both the readers and the editors around the world. Always test your list definition with extreme and borderline cases. If you have the slightest doubt on how to handle them, the definition needs more work.
Writing list definitions may not be for people who just started editing. It requires an ability to think things through, to communicate clearly, and to grasp complicated concepts such as WP:NOR. When I started editing here, I was completely shocked by it. Where I came from, I was asked to do my own, in-depth research, and not to copy anything from others. “Unoriginal research” was an invective, not a guiding principle. It took me many years to get used to it, and editors who have problems with it have my sympathy.
Just as one example: If we have three authoritative sources for a definition, and if we don't quite like any of them, we then can't take a little from A, add a little from B and C and say they all defined it as D. This would be textbook OR, and it would be fraudulent. I don't mind if we do it in a blog, or if a magazine does it, but at WP, we absolutely can't.
If we have three definitions, then WP gives us these choices:
That's basically it. Of course, we can toss all three definitions and define a Metro as whatever we like. Tomorrow, we will have a big "Citation needed" tag, and next week, we will have a huge edit war. Basically, we will have a situation like now. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@ IJBall: It had NONE. The NTD and APTA cites are no stress-resistant sources. When I came on, the UITP link was dead. Having lived for a long time is no proof that you are still alive. I found the UITP link in Google cache and offered it up in talk. Knowing well that Google will be challenged, I dug further, spent a lot of time nobody else want to spend and finally found what now is the article's prime source. Without that, the link would still be dead. The UITP definition edit has survived the only real test of a consensus having in fact been reached: It was confirmed by other editors’ edits, the cite was improved by other editors. The fact that the new definition offers more leeway was used by one editor to raise track length and station count of Seoul. The higher numbers quickly found their way into other lists at WP. Quite puzzlingly, the same editor who made those edits now appears to vehemently argue against the UITP definition he had used to substantiate the edits. Or maybe not, I have given up on trying to find out.
Of course, a consensus can change. If someone would find a newer UITP source where they have changed their minds and say that Metro equals Heavy Rail, that it is not Metro when it has level crossings, other trains on their tracks, worse than 10 minute service intervals, multi trip tickets, and station to station fares, then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, because it would settle many years of holy wars.
Please correct me where I am wrong in the following:
If I would have to argue for the other side in this grand debate, I would quickly forget the APTA source. It is not helpful.
I am somewhat of a WP:OR fundamentalist. As I said, I had to get used to it, and I learned. If “A can also be called b, c, d, or e” and I construe this into “it only is A if it is b” then I would commit a textbook case of WP:OR. I know, some have a hard time understanding this, set theory is not for everyone. The best advice I have been given in regards to OR is that “if it needs judgment, it probably is OR.” Currently, new entries or deletions of this list are hugely judgment-driven, they are considered by feel, not by facts.
I reiterate what I said before: I am not married to the current solution. It clearly is suboptimal. It appears to make a lot of editors unhappy. I have offered many new options. There probably are more. They should be discussed. Which is more worthwhile than these prayer-mill discussions.
I have listed above what Wikipedia demands from a list. Are we going to live up to WP standards? BsBsBs ( talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The intro is derailing. The common reader, and we write this for the reader, has absolutely no idea what we are talking about.
To force a rewrite, I had to delete:
"The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail [1] [2] and commuter rail, [1] [2] is not always clear, and while UITP only makes distinctions between "metros" and "light rail", [3] the U.S.'s APTA and FTA distinguish all three modes. [1] [2] "
I could not possibly edit this, my head is still spinning. What three modes???? What is the poet trying to tell us here? Please spend your energy and writing talents on a better list definition, and please don't allow wikilawyering to pollute articles. This is an encyclopedia, not the fine print of a car lease. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
To move this discussion into a more productive area (something I think we can all agree upon,) I have assembled this table of definitions of terms that were heavily used in the article and the attendant discussion. They are from the definition chapters of the most cited sources, to wit:
For those who are not familiar with these organizations, the UITP International Association of Public Transport is an international organization “for public transport authorities and operators, policy decision-makers, scientific institutes and the public transport supply and service industry.” The APTA is a national American Association. The FTA is an arm of the American government.
To state what should be obvious, but what is frequently overlooked: Of the three only the UITP defines “Metro.”
If we would apply dangerous reverse logic, then we could go further into other models of transport. To our great surprise, we would hear from the APTA:
And
We could be tempted to conclude that according to the APTA, a Metro can be both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail, especially when elsewhere in the world [3] [4] [5] [6], and also in Passenger rail terminology, "Metro" and " Metropolitan rail" are used interchangeably. Which makes the issue more complicated than it already is. To make the confusion perfect, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, operator of the Berlin U-Bahn (or metro) now has "The 'MetroNetz' - a tram and bus-based core city network not to be confused with the underground system." [7]
Term | UITP Recommended Standard | NTD Glossary | APTA Glossary |
"Metro" | “(I) Metros: UGT systems operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic. They are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surfacelevel but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible. In different parts of the world Metro systems are also known as the underground, the subway or the tube. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.” | Undefined | Not separately specified (see: Heavy rail) |
"Commuter Rail" | Undefined |
A transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance traveloperating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. |
Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail) characterized by an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by multi-trip tickets, specific station to station fares, railroad employment practices and usually only one or two stations in the central business district. Intercity rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Most service is provided on routes of current or former freight railroads. |
"Light Rail" | Light Rail is defined as a UGT system operated in parts of the system not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, and in parts of the system with segregated right-of-way. The segregation may include some sections of line where inadvertent access is not possible. |
Light Rail (LR)(mode) |
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps. |
"Heavy Rail" | Undefined |
Heavy Rail (HR) |
Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading. |
"Trams"/"Streetcars" |
(II) Trams: UGT systems not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, which share their right of way with general road and/or pedestrian traffic and are therefore embedded in their relevant national road traffic legislation (highway codes and specific adaptations). |
Streetcar rail: This mode is for rail transit systems operating entire routes predominantly on streets in mixed-traffic. This service typically operates with single-car trains powered by overhead catenaries and with frequent stops. | Not separately specified (see: Light rail) |
"Local rail systems" | Such systems connect city centres with their suburban hinterland or regional local centres. Such systems are operated on rights of way which are basically segregated from general road and/or pedestrian traffic and/or which can be declared by law as independent from the public environment even if they are not segregated by location, form of construction or appropriate measures. For historical reasons they might be strongly influenced by conventional railway parameters and their operations procedures. | Undefined | Undefined. |
BsBsBs (
talk)
10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors will excuse me if I will ignore certain disruptive comments and commenters until sanity, civility, and rudimentary standards of logic return. In this case, a lack of opposition does not imply agreement. Wikipedia rules forbid a synthesis of published material, and I am on record that I oppose any such synthesis now and in the future. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm really glad that finally a more productive section has been opened. Bsbsbs, your opening of this section is very grateful. However, I don't think separation using Metro would help in this discussion. As we've discussed along, many countries each have distinct definitions. The only definition we could agree on would be physical components, such as # of people transported in an hour when the service has 100% congestion , size of metro cars (in volume) or more. Different organizations have so different definitions, and even in the resource you've provided, the resources don't provide definitions for all terms, leading to possible ambiguity among the terms (As lack of definitions of some terms would make the defining organizations to include that term in other predefined terms) And about the talk below (STATION) I think we should apply same standards here. My opinion is to count physically connected (that is, when passengers transfer, he doesn't need to go through free area - only passing thru paid areas) transfer stations as one, and others as two. I know it contradicts with almost all system admin's counting methods (as they would either count all transfer stations as one, or as multiples) However, this would be a better way to converge the counting criteria. So, for example, in Seoul system, Seoul station would be counted as 3 stations as there are 1+4 line station, GyeongUi station, and A'REX station. Noryangjin station would be counted as 2 stations for now, as there aren't any transfer way (but as one station soon after) 222.101.9.92 ( talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor alleges that I “EXPLICITLY DELETED WHAT [the editor] POSTED" (emphasis not mine.)
I did no such thing. I have been trying, to the extent humanly possible on this talk page, to ignore the editor and her incoherent ramblings, which have been contaminating this talk page for six weeks now. I would “CENSOR” (emphasis not mine) this verbal pollution no more than I would curate my neighbor’s septic tank.
What I had done was inform the editors that I had amended the inclusion criteria to the extent that “metros with separate operators are counted separately in this list.”
I then told Epicgenius to “keep digging.”
When I inserted my two comments, it was done with considerable trouble. Lately, is has become increasingly hard to insert a comment without getting an edit conflict. The cause appears to be the alleging editor herself. As the history shows this talk page has been taken over by one editor, who appears to edit with a B-52.
These are today's stats of this talk page, likely already severely outdated when you read it:
User | Edits today | Perc. | Edits total |
Massyparcer | 109 | 78% | 898 |
IJBall | 11 | 8% | 182 |
BsBsBs | 9 | 7% | 134 |
Epicgenius | 5 | 4% | 36 |
Terramorphous | 3 | 2% | 95 |
Lowercase sigmabot III | 1 | 1% | 8 |
222.101.9.92 | 1 | 1% | 1 |
Total | 139 | 3170 |
My edits were bracketed by Massyparcer’s carpet-bombing. Apparently, even the Wikipedia computer can no longer keep up with Massyparcer. If it appears that I removed any of the editor’s effluence, then she is wrong. If she continues her allegations, then I have no other choice than to ask for a formal investigation into this matter, as inane as this may be.
However, I also see that the editor is making threats. Apparently, in her study of the talk page guidelines she not only missed the part that frowns on continuous editing of one own's comments. She also did not see the part that says “Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.”
But anyway, having been threatened by an editor who already has considerable ANI experience, I better collect my material. BsBsBs ( talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"This is my final warning to BsBsBs: If your disruptive edits don't stop right here, we have no choice but to let the admins deal with your highly disruptive behaviour based on the very strong evidence above." [8]. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Trademark Massyparcer. I resume my previous posture and ignore her. Recommend same. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary...Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others.
— WP:AGF