Wikipedia

Talk:Copenhagen Metro

Latest comment: 5 years ago by CapnZapp in topic update sections
Learn more about this page
Former good articleCopenhagen Metro was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 1, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Discussion

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
  • Anyone with spare time on their hands are welcome to merge this article with the existing one here on WikiPedia. --Chr 01:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey ... Thanks for this. I'll to turn it into an article as soon as possible. Thank you! PZFUN 03:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, but yellow text on a white background is very hard to read. 85.76.152.179 05:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone with knowledge about the overground stations on the way to Vanløse from Nørreport is encouraged to add information about their construction and what have we. I think they run on the ground as normal trains, and not on embankments as on Amager, but I'm not sure, and I haven't been able to find any pictures of or information about them. --Ghent 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

To settle that "rail rapid transit rail system" bit, I think that it should be "rapid transit rail system" or "rail-based rapid transit system" because we're not transporting rails here. ;) My personal opinion is that "rapid transit rail system" is better because you go from generic to more specific terms - the logical way. Ghent 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any reader is going to be confused, thinking that the Metro transports "rails". "Rail" is an adjective describing what kind of rapid transit system it is - and distinguishes it from a "bus rapid transit" system. Adjectives precede the noun they describe: "large rapid transit system", "old rapid transit system", "rail rapid transit system" - not "rapid transit large system", "rapid transit old system", or "rapid transit rail system". The final test: a Google search of the term "rail rapid transit system" receives 46,600 hits, while "rapid transit rail system" gets only 15,900 - the former phrase is obviously more heavily used. Denvoran 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'll bow to Google. But I maintain that it sounds stupid. I am very well aware of the fact that adjectives come before the noun they describe, but you can say a "rail system" and describe it with "rapid transit", which then would become the adjective. Ghent 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It may sound stupid to those for whom English is not their mother language, but to my ear "rapid transit rail system" sounds awkward (I work in the public transport business and never hear it this way). I agree with your point, but is the article about a "rail system" (the German Federal Railways, the SNCF, Japan Railways, etc. are what would first come to mind as examples of "rail systems") or about a "rapid transit system" (the Paris Metro, the New York Subway, the London Underground come to mind). Though it is a "rail system", if you had to choose between the two, the Copenhagen Metro would be better classified as a "rapid transit system". Thus, "rapid transit system" becomes the noun which "rail" then describes. Denvoran 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fair argument. You have convinced me grammatically. Phonetically you haven't, however, because my boyfriend says that it sounds stupid too, and he's as British as it gets. :p Ghent 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
You imply that only the British speak English correctly, or better than any other English-speakers at least. Well, you (and your "boyfriend") are entitled to your opinion. Denvoran 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering whether 40 km/h is the correct average speed. M1 is stated as 13,9 km and http://www.rejseplanen.dk/ gives a travel time of 24 minutes, which works out to 34.75 km/h. M2 is stated as 14,2 km and the travel time seems to be 25 minutes, which works out to 34(.08) km/h. I don't think the system average can be higher than the line averages? Lcpitkan (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Copenhagen Metro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ---Dough4872 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Comments:

  1. "a tramway, a light rail and a rapid transit", "system" should be added after "light rail" and "rapid transit".
  2. "all the initial nine stations", either "all" or "the" should be removed.
  3. "and work to rebuilt to metro started" sounds awkward", Perhaps change "rebuilt" to "rebuild".
  4. What are "tin schedules"?
  5. The sentence "The start of must be built at the same time of the City Circle Line being built, or face a multitude higher construction costs and long stop of operations later." sounds awkward.
  6. The sentence "The tunnels consists of two parallel barrels; the run through stable limestone at about 30 meters (98 ft) depth, but are elevated slightly at stations." also sounds awkward.
  7. The sentence "On the elevated sections, the tracks lay on each their parallel pylon-supported viaducts." needs to be reworded.
  8. Combine the sentences " The stations are built with island platforms.[23] The stations are fully accessible for people with disabilities."
  9. The sentence "The track is standard gauge." is short and should be combined with another sentence.
  10. "at the south of M1"? South end? South of the line? You need to be more specific here.

I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough4872 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking time to review the article. I didn't think of it at the time of nomination, but the whole world's eyes are on Bella Center—that serves the venue for the climate conference—just as we speak, eh, write. Arsenikk (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I will pass the article. ---Dough4872 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA reassessment

edit

The article no longer meet GA criteria (most obviously for referencing) but I've edited it too much myself to carry out an individual reassessment. I've thus tagged the talk page accordingly. Schwede66 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Missing stations in infobox map?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all! I am not an expert in Copenhagen Metro (have only taken it once), but I noticed apparently there are two missing stations, Ørestad and Femøren, on both branches. Please have a look :) – PeterCX&Talk 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. It's now been fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Much of this is obsolete. Work on the circle line tunnels have been going on for some time. The branch to Brønshøj has been abandoned. Another branch has been decided, though work has not started, so the politicians may yet change their minds. It will branch from Østerport and terminate at Nordhavn, with only two stations. --Klausok (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update required regarding City Circle Line and branches

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I second Klausok's comment; an update regarding Brønshøj and Nordhavn branches is needed, as well as other temporal updates, since it has been a while since it has been approved as a good article. I have made a few temporal updates just now, but there are still some things mentioned twice here and there, and in the first half there is only reference to M3 but not M4. I also think the Sydhavn proposal can be expanded upon. Perhaps all mention about City Circle Line should be cut short in this article and moved over to the CCL article exclusively? - that way only one article needs to be updated as construction proceeds and tons of news articles about upcoming scandals ;-) are added. Unless someone else takes the ball, I'll probably come back and do that.

Also worth checking out: updated map (including Nordhavn proposal and with Brønshøj removed) and timeline (in Danish), which I have added today as ref name "timeline" in section "Future". --Katana (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article gives two different years (2019 & 2020) for the opening of the City Circle Line. That needs sorting out, plus an up-to-date reference. Schwede66 10:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
The history section is arranged by chronology, with old current metro (M1+M2) mixed confusingly with new Circle metro (M3+M4) stuff. I suggest separating by project rather than by time, as the two systems have little to do with eachother. Agree that Circle stuff should be mostly moved to Circle article, with little remaining. In 2020 we may consider a separate article for the old metro, and convert this one to an overview article. TGCP (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copenhagen Metro. 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).

  • 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 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copenhagen Metro. 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).

  • 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) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Copenhagen Metro. 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).

  • 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) 15:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Copenhagen Metro. 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.

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).

  • 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) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Copenhagen Metro. 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.

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).

  • 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) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Trains per hour and cars per hour

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article reads:

While a 6 train per hour (tph) service with 8-car trains, moves 48 cars per hour in each direction, Copenhagen Metro with 30 tph with 3 cars only, actually moves 90 cars per hour in each direction. So, in terms of capacity, the Copenhagen Metro is equivalent to a system with 8 cars and 12 tph (or a train every fifth minute).

I honestly having a hard time understanding what point this section is trying to get across. Can someone maybe clarify? --2001:700:300:2211:4472:F664:1599:9F4E (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA request

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been tagged for a GA reassessment. There are a lot of citation needed tags added about the time the request was made. Can these be dealt with so the article can maintain its Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Delisted. CapnZapp (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Copenhagen Metro

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result': Delisted Consensus here that it doesn't meet the GA criteria AIRcorn (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looking through this page, I have noticed that their are certain sections of the article that doesn't have any references in it at all which in my eyes would fail if it was done today. There is also the fact that in the section, "Future lines discussed", there isn't enough prose in this section to have this bit of the article. Add to the fact that their are sections which needs a reference and it's probably worth a shot at maybe reassessing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree that the article probably fails criteria 2a (list of all sources) and 2c (original research). I think it could be appropriate to just remove unreferenced material, since some of it is clearly unattributed speculation. Jc86035 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Delist - in addition to these examples mentioned above, there are now several {{update}} tags. Unless someone updates this article very soon, this will be a pretty major problem and can't continue being a GA in the future. Unfortunately I don't speak Danish so I can't update it myself. I think we should also ping the recent editors who have been most active on this page, @CapnZapp and Valentinian:. epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
No objections from me. I would say the article is pretty far from GA status (my recent edits only patch the worst holes). I would, however, consider it worthwhile to make sure the editors active around the time of the original GA award are made aware of this process (since they are presumably native Danes with the best access to DA language sources) CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dough4872:, @Arsenikk: are the two that was around those people who nominated and did the nomination respectively in that year. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

update sections

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

In particular, the Service section. There is a law-mandated new surcharge on the Metro: More metro costs a little bit more. CapnZapp (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copenhagen uses a very complex fare zone system. It isn't as much a surchage, it is simply a price increase applying for all users of the metro / S-train / busses combined with a drastic cutdown on bus lines within the M3's coverage area, forcing people to use the metro instead of busses. Provided they don't switch to bikes instead. Valentinian T / C 14:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Let us hope somebody updates the article to cover the new surcharge since it is directly linked to the Metro expansion, and belongs on this page. CapnZapp (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also, just noticed the section above. The main issue with the article was that it was originally written more than 10 years ago when construction of the initial metro network (M1 and M2) had been controversial - this article was less influenced by this than its Danish couterpart - and plans for the M3 and notably any lines beyond that point were very sketchy due to political priorities and funding issues. There has been a ton of plans for extensions championed by the city of Copenhagen, the western suburbs, and various governments and opposition parties, but all lacking volunteers to pay for them. Also deadlines for the M3 were broken numerous times. The only certain thing is that the M3 opened in September 2019, it is rather certain that the first part of the M4 opens in early 2020 and the southern part of the M4 is under construction and is scheduled to open in the mid 2020s. Valentinian T / C 14:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you posted this in the correct section? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I referred to the section above the "update sections" header. Since others have already decided on demoting the article, I consider that discussion closed, and it wouldn't be proper to add anything to it. Valentinian T / C 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, no point in dwelling on past mistakes. Why the article isn't in better shape isn't very relevant. In the interest of focusing on constructive improvement, I'll repeat my intended topic of discussion for this section. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the article needs updating. In particular, to cover the surcharge that's directly linked to the Metro expansion expense. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copenhagen_Metro&oldid=1194434154"