Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about List of metro systems. 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 9

→

Seoul Again

Latest comment: 10 years ago43 comments8 people in discussion

Ok this is getting ridiculous. What is the answer to the Seoul question? The current tally is not sourced and can arguably be considered WP:OR and WP:Dubious. The debate earlier in the year ended with a comprise. I'm going to open the box again.

1. The AREX will have KTX High speed railway services running on its tracks in February of next year. They are doing equipment testing right now.

The AREX is practically a korail line with korail owning 88.8% of it. It has been upgraded with a design speed of 160 km/h. That changes things.

Date has been delayed to April 2014 as of 5th January 2014.

2. Someone has redid the Seoul Metro count by adding the U Line to it. The U line is part of the Seoul National Capital urban rail network but is not physically connected to the section deemed rapid transit in the earlier discussion. Should it count? If so then should we add Yokohama Subway to Tokyo Metro's count? They are connected by through trains via a non-rapid transit standard railway. Or Kyoto added to Osaka due to connecting through operation of Osaka's trains. The Incheon metro was always connected to Seoul via the non rapid transit portion of line 1 but it has been ruled to be separate from the Seoul metro's count. I believe similar should be done to the U line. In addition the original ruling never included the U line for that reason, so before anyone edits again to add the U line please discuss it here first.

3. Another discussion is concerned with the use of double standards. If Tokyo doesn't amalgamate its tally due to the lines being separate systems from a corporate, ownership, operation and fare calculation perspective; Why should Seoul? Not too sure about that one, Seoul seems much more integrated with every line having the same fare structure The differences between the Lines 1-9 is just the operators. Except the Sinbundang Line which is owned by Korea Rail Network Authority as opposed to the Seoul government and operated by NeoTrans Co. Ltd., they charge a different and extra fare.Terramorphous (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed multiple times before and users have reached a consensus on this. KTX will run on a grade separated track on AREX so this will not change anything. The subways will continue to have grade separated track for themselves and not share with KTX. The U Line is connected to Seoul Subway Line 1. U Line uses Siemens VAL 208 trains, identical to the Toulouse Metro in France, which is listed on this article. It fits all the definition of a rapid transit, but was opened in 2012, so somebody didn't update this article when it opened. Comparing Seoul to Tokyo doesn't make a lot of sense because unlike Tokyo it runs a single unified system with a universal fare structure. To anyone using the Seoul subway, it's the same subway system, just with a different operator. In fact, there is a whole mix-match of operators within operators - U Line is operated externally by Incheon Transit, operator of Incheon subway line 1. Neo Trans is a privately owned company but any decisions it makes about fares or operations must be approved by the Korean government, so technically it follows the same rules as any other line. I think there was a consensus for Tokyo's tally to be treated the same if it fits the consensus reached previously with Seoul, but again, Tokyo needs a separate consensus anyway because its system is totally different to start with.Massyparcer (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes the AREX and the KTX are on grade separated track but they are sharing tracks. Where is the source that states they will be on separate tracks? All mine say they are running mixed with AREX commuter and airport express trains. A metro system must be separate from other rail traffic. Its not even like Tokyo where it can be counted as through servicing as Korail owns both the AREX and the KTX services.Terramorphous (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked out rail diagrams and you are partially correct about the KTX service from February 2014. KTX will share tracks from Digital Media City to Incheon Airport (KTX enters the Airport Railroad via Gyeongui Line at DMC) - However, Digital Media City to Seoul Station will continue to remain completely KTX-free being used only by subway cars. http://blog.naver.com/ianhan/120116283599 Massyparcer (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes as shown by my sources. Regardless by definition it will not be a metro line by February 2014. I warned of this happening during the earlier debate but at the time AREX did fit the definition of a metro so I allowed it to be included in the count. However knowing this eventuality I was aware that adding the AREX was a bit premature. There was still some doubt about the count as we pretty much declared Seoul as the longest metro system without a single reputable source saying so. Terramorphous (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've avoided this discussion before now, as I know nothing about the Asian systems. However, I agree on your specific point here - the claim to the "longest" system in the world is now becoming contentious, and I'd now be in favor of cutting that sentence from the intro until it can be properly sourced. Because, as it is, I have doubts about the quoted "system length" figures for both Seoul and Shanghai. Also what does that sentence mean by "passenger route length"? - Is that "system length"? Or "line length"? (See: Here, for the definitions.) Because if it's "line length", I don't think that's a figure we should be quoting at all, here. --IJBall (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Both Shanghai and Seoul have their counts done in "route length". Shanghai's count is pretty cut and dry, its pretty obvious which lines are metro and which lines are not. Seoul is like Tokyo, its not clear what is rapid transit and what is commuter rail. The question is which lines in Seoul should be counted. Sources outside Wikipedia only count Metro Lines 1-9 owned by the Seoul government as metro. However a user months ago has pointed out that AREX, Sinbundang and Bundang lines are also full metros in a technical sense. Now the AREX is not longer a metro line from a technical sense and most sources outside of Wikipedia don't even consider it a subway line from the beginning.Terramorphous (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I think that sentence from the intro paragraph should be cut, until a reliable external reference can be found for it - the other stats quoted in the opening paragraph all seem to be referenced, except for that one. So it should be cut until it can be properly referenced... --IJBall (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have 1-2 sources that mention Shanghai as the longest in the world as of late 2013. Shanghai just opened 2 new lines a few days ago.

Regardless it still doesn't solve the issue of what is or will be Seoul's exact metro length. I am for the removal of the sentence stating what is the longest metro system by length. But what about the introduction of each article that mentions X is #th largest system in the world.Terramorphous (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the issue of counting rail length of Seoul Metro simply aroused by the rank issue with Shanghai Metro? If that's the main driving force, we could make a clear criteria thru discussion, and if the ranks made by using those criteria say that Shanghai is not in the first rank, we could just add below the chart that 'There is many ways to count metro systems. In Wiki, we follow common consensus to blah blah blah. Many sources, however, indicate Shanghai as the longest system, by counting only city-owned lines of all cities' or something. MinSik CHO (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Tokyo subway should it merge together two, right? Seoul, the capital of electric hoops this concept can contain so much? And the entry list is a list of metro, not electrically hoops.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What is an "electrical hoop"? If you are referring to commuter rails, they have been already separated out. Seoul's tally counts only rapid transit lines and this has been made very clear in the references and previous discussions.Massyparcer (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should also know that maglev not commute, since so much of Seoul can now draw lines through a system in Shanghai how not? Moreover, the official website reported that Shanghai Metro Maglev system will also be included.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we're not sure what you are trying to say. Please review your word choice more carefully, and be sure you are using the correct terms. It will make for better communication. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Shanghai maglev shall not be counted it is not considered rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Terramorphous, I think you have misunderstood the sources - AREX from Seoul Station to Digital Media City will continue to be counted in the tally as it is a full metro system free of any other traffic, including intercity trains. Only Digital Media City to Incheon Airport will be shared with KTX. Also you keep saying as if it happened now, it won't happen until April 2014 at the earliest, and this is not even a fixed official date. Please stop decounting U Line from the tally as it is a full metro line of the system. Massyparcer (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, I didn't change the stat. On a related note the earlier discussion in the beginning stated that the U line was not counted because it was separated like the Incheon metro. Only recently someone has changed it to add the U line. The count was always without it. To borrow your words "This was discussed multiple times before and users have reached a consensus on this"

Secondly the AREX is either entirely metro or its not. No scraping off "metro enough sections" unless it is a through operation of the metro trains like in Japan. Given how the AREX and KTX is owned by Korail the AREX really is not any different from the Gyeongui, Jungang, Gyeongwon, Gyeongbu, and Gyeongin Lines. I made this section because KTX service to the airport is immanent. I don't want any fist fighting and screaming on the day of opening. Consensus takes time to reach. Once consensus has been made the documentation is here and it will be a smooth transition. Everything I have said or done is based on that consensus. Which was created to make counting the extra metro lines in Seoul consistent with the rest of the world. If you want we can just go back to the original cited count of just Metro Lines 1-9.Terramorphous (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So, this gets back to the "split" idea? - Maybe it would be best to have Metro Lines 1-9 be one entry, and then the others as separate entries? It's not like that that's unprecedented - New York City has multiple entries, after all... --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We can put the U line under the city of Uijeongbu. I don't think splitting the Bundang and line 3 and 4 Korail sections off is appropriate here. They are highly integrated and connected. Sinbundang is a bit iffy but its still very integrated into the system and most people can't even tell its run by a owned and operated by a different entity. They might spot the different fare they charge but that's really about it. The issue is AREX rapid transit or not.Terramorphous (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree consensus needs time but watch out your words - when you say "now", it literally means right now. I have to disagree with you on the U Line because if we follow your idea, it would disrupt the criteria of other lines in Seoul subway system. It meets all the criteria of a rapid transit and even identical lines using the French VAL 208 system exist on this very same article multiple times, and it is highly integrated and connected to Seoul Subway Line 1 with a future extension of Seoul Subway Line 7 to Pocheon which will make another transfer on the U Line. I have to disagree with you on AREX as well, because the section from Digital Media City to Seoul Station is an entirely different line called Yongsan Line which is completely underground with no intercity trains whatsoever. So we are not cutting off any lines here and it will be continued to be counted in the tally. Massyparcer (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FTR, my reading of the Line 1 and U Line Wiki articles would seem to back Terramorphous up that the U Line should be counted as its own separate line - nowhere in the Line 1 article do I see the transfer station to the U Line mentioned... --IJBall (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

KTX service on AREX between DMC and Incheon Airport officially delayed to April 2014 at the earliest due to signal system problems. So AREX will remain completely intercity train free and will be counted on the tally until at least April 2014. Source: http://www.kyeongin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=797861 Massyparcer (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No because those other Seoul LRT lines are directly connected to the rapid transit sections of the Seoul subway network. The U line is not. Yes there is an extension of Line 7 to the U line but to take your words "when you say now, it literally means right now." Is there a connection right now? By your logic Tokyo and Yokohama should be amalgamated they are connected. Heck they even have trains running through with each other.

I see that there is an edit war going on I'm going to set it back to as shown original consensus:
Line 1 (Seoul~Cheongyangni)
Lines 2~9
AREX
Bundang
Sinbundang

WITH the Evergreen line as it opened after the consensus was made and physically connected to the bundang line.

WITHOUT the U line as it was not discussed before and users have not reached a consensus

If you want to add the U line please discuss it here.Terramorphous (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So where is the consensus that a rapid transit line needs to be "connected" (by which there is no consensus that it needs to be a transfer station) to another rapid transit line? The U Line is a metro line that is part of an entire system, which is totally different from Tokyo and Yokohama. Stop comparing between two completely different countries and apply Japanese rules to Korea. You regard as if they are the same. Like you said, Korean subway systems operate in a completely integrated and seemless way unlike the Japanese, which means that there is universal fare structure, consistent inclusions in all subway maps and a major transfer station at Seoul Subway Line 1's Hoeryong Station. To any metro user coming from any other metro line, this is just another metro line. The only reasoning behind the previous consensus to exclude this section of Line 1 is purely technical, subway cars operate in frequencies of less than 10 minutes and yes, only subway cars operate strictly in this line, so in my view, this section of Line 1 should be part of the tally, let alone U Line, which is 100% a rapid transit. I don't think there is anybody disagreeing on this other than you, so this is the consensus as it should have already been. Massyparcer (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I know nothing of the particulars here, but I'd agree with Terramorphous that if a line isn't somehow directly 'physically' connected to the rest of the system (e.g. by a transfer station), then it's "not part of the system", but its own separate line, needing its own seprate entry in the table. The Staten Island Railway (which is not physically connected to the New York City Subway) is just such an example of this. --IJBall (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

U Line is physically connected to Seoul Subway Line 1 at Hoeryong Station. U Line was deliberately built to complement Subway Line 1 and is highly integrated and connected to the Seoul subway system. 125.130.108.7 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

125.130.108.7 it connected to the Gyeongwon Line portion of Line 1 which is not rapid transit. Just like Yokohama is connected to Tokyo by the non rapid transit Tōkyū Tōyoko Line. So Tokyo and Yokohama are separate from a rapid transit sense.Terramorphous (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, commuter and subway operation in Seoul are heavily influenced by Japan in the early days, that's why the Seoul metro section of line 1 counts. Its owned by Seoul Metro and through operating with korail lines. Just like half the subway lines in Japan. OK if you don't want to get compared with Japan then I'll compare with Europe. The RER and S-bahns of Europe are all seamlessly connected with their respective metro systems with maps in and fares. However they don't count. Their extremely metro-like tunnel sections and even their isolated and grade separated sections don't count. If the other end of the line is not rapid transit the whole line doesn't count. Back to Japan there are hundreds of commuter rail lines that have significant underground sections. But no one is going to count ONLY those sections and act like the other parts of the line doesn't exist. If you don't want me to apply Japanese or European exceptions to Seoul we can just go back to the cited count of lines 1-9. Which is no exceptions, bulletproof, not original research and not dubious.

That brings me to the second issue, Massyparcer your "scraping up" metro enough sections again. You don't want Seoul to be judged using a Japanese criteria; well there no other criteria that allows you only count certain sections of a line as rapid transit. Once again the entire line has to be rapid transit. If not then what? 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? The Gyeongwon Line beyond Yangju dips to 30 min per train service off peak and the line starts having at grade crossings. In addition the Korean government is planning KTX High Speed railway services to run on it. Once again back to Japan (note the parallels every example seems to draw) the Keisei Main Line, Tobu Skytree Line, Seibu Ikebukuro Line, Keiō Line, Keikyū Main Line and Odakyū Odawara Line has the following features:

through operation with metro line
closer to metro line the more metro like it gets
further away service frequency drops and grade crossings appear.
commuter rail so it doesn't count.

With is exactly like Seoul's commuter lines. You say I can't compare Seoul to Japan yet these railways are extremely similar to the Seoul commuter lines which you continually assert are subway lines. It doesn't matter what the general public thinks these lines are, rapid transit has a set of criteria that must be followed.Terramorphous (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are introducing all sorts of POVs and trying to mislead existing consensus. So if we follow your logic, Line 1 is counted because it was heavily influenced by the Japanese and the new lines are not because they're built by Koreans? The underground section between Seoul Station and DMC will be counted just as Line 1, regardless of whether they were heavily influenced by the Japanese or not because they only allow rapid transit traffic. This issue is technical, nothing to do with Japan. Where is this kind of superiorism coming from? Japanese lines are not counted because they are mostly ghost lines - Trains run in frequencies above 20 minutes typically, which doesn't count as a rapid transit. Japanese, European or whatever, applying another country's rules or customs to another doesn't make any sense for a starter. I'm not including DMC~Seoul Station because it is simply underground - This is an entirely different line dedicated to metro traffic ONLY, so fits every definition of a metro. You said "no one is going to count ONLY those sections", yet if we follow your logic, we already have an existing consensus on this with Line 1. I'm not disagreeing with you about DMC~Incheon Airport being shared with KTX, which you are correct. DMC~Seoul Station is different and you are basically disagreeing with yourself here. Massyparcer (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer There is change in my reply as our edits conflicted so I had to repost, please read. Terramorphous (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the ghost metros I am referring to are not all railways in Japan but only the Rankai, Tsukusuba, Saitama and Toyo lines. Which are fully grade separated, isolated and rapid transit serviced extensions of existing metro lines (for the latter 2). Analogous to this in Seoul is Ilsan and Ansan lines. This argument is how I got these lines to count for Seoul in the first place. Once again looking at how consensus of rapid transit is handled in Japan proves invaluable here.

Secondly, I would like to point out that I have been showing you the link to the existing consensus on this page. I don't understand how you say there is no consensus on the issue when there is. If you disagree and want to alter it please discuss here.

Thirdly, Its not the fact that they are built with Japanese help is why Line 1 is excepted. It's that Line 1 is owned by different companies. One of them is a rapid transit company so that section counts. If everything is owned by the same company them its legally one long line. Gyeongui <-> Yongsan (or AREX but they are not the same lines) <-> Jungang is no different from Katamachi <-> Tozai <-> Kobe.

Lastly, I find your remarks disturbing. As a new user I will let it slide but at Wikipedia we do not condone such accusations and posting. Should this behavior continue, I shall have not over choice but to call the mods. Terramorphous (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now for AREX. Massyparcer your mixing lines up the AREX is called the AREX. The Yongsan Line is a parallel under construction subterranean commuter rail link to connect Gyeongui and Jungang Lines. It is also part of Korail. Even if AREX part of the Yongsan it still does not change anything, both are owned by Korail, I see no through operation between companies. In fact it shows that the AREX is just another Korail commuter line like Gyeongui, Jungang, Gyeongwon, Gyeongbu, and Gyeongin Lines. As you said by 2014 April or whenever the KTX trains start officially rolling the AREX should be discounted.

What has both being owning by Korail anything to do with this? Heck Line 1, 3, 4 all operate subway cars mixed up from Korail. If we follow your logic, we should discount Line 1 altogether since is connected to another commuter rail line. So your logic doees't make any sense to start with, the Yongsan Line is NOT a commuter rail but a full underground rapid transit section rebuilt to run subway cars only. What you read about the Yongsan Line is old and about the times when it was a railway line - Now, it has been fully converted to a subway line and it will be counted in the tally just like Line 1 from the previous consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again through operation between companies if they are the same company then they are not through serving between different tracks owned by different people. 1, 3 and 4 have different companies running different sections so only metro sections count. However, the Ilsan and Ansan Lines being 100% grade separated with rapid transit level of service throughout its entire length is counted regardless if it is Korail or not. As per original consensus.

The Yongsan line is a underground railway link that allows direct service between the Jungang and Gyeongui Lines. You know what we call that in America? SEPTA's Commuter Tunnel. You know what we call that in Europe? S-bahn, Crossrail, Passante. You say I can't compare Japan with Seoul but here is an example that fits perfectly JR West Osaka's Tozai line. What are they? Commuter rail. So may I ask the question on what makes Seoul so different that allows you to section off sections of the metropolitan commuter rail network as "rapid transit" and make a whole new exception to the rule. On the topic of exceptions Line 1 is excepted because of through operation by a metro company. As I have stated before and as per original consensus.

You have reverted my first revert based on lack of consensus but as IJBall pointed out there is already a consensus. I'm reverting back to original consensus of lines to be included as of Dec 28, 2013. Massyparcer as a new user I caution you about reverting the changes back to "your" consensus and telling me to discuss on the talk page. We already have a consensus if you want to change it then talk about it here first. This is my second and last revert. Should this escalate I will have no choice but to reach out to the mods.Terramorphous (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, threatening another user to report to the mods simply because he doesn't agree with you is against Wikipedia guidelines for a starter. You need to constructively discuss this matter with me if you want to achieve a consensus. All you are doing is discounting U Line in your reverts, for which there has been no consensus, yet your entire claims above refer to AREX being discounted. These are two separate issues we have to deal with. So your new logic is that Line 1 is only counted because it is operated by Seoul Metro, whereas Yongsan Line will be discounted because it is operated by Korail? I disagree with you that an operating company should decide what line is included or not because Korail runs other metro lines like Bundang, Gwacheon, Ilsan, Ansan and so on. What makes Seoul so different from Japan? I will answer that for you. Japanese railway companies only operate commuter rails, whereas Korail operates BOTH commuter rails and metro lines. You treat Korail as if it only operates commuter rails, which is exactly the problem of applying Japanese customs and rules to Korea, which I have consistently warned you against doing so.

1. AREX was not removed in reverts because I understand that it is still a metro as per consensus. I don't blindly edit. I'll discount it when the KTX starts rolling in mid 2014.

2. Line 1 being included is not new logic I explained the inclusion in the original consensus

3. Gwacheon, Ilsan, Ansan are just rapid transit extensions of existing metro lines. Just like Saitama and Toyo. Its only Bundang that is a full metro line completely operated by Korail. The Yamanote Line is in this list as a metro. That's fully operated by JR. Once again parallels can be drawn here. In addition, Korail a giant national rail corporation that runs 3,559km of railway with High Speed Rail, Commuter, Regional rail services. Operates 1 subway line independently. Just like how Euskotren a commuter rail company in Spain is building 1 metro line.

4. I am always applying what is done for other countries to Seoul because that's how a criteria works. It is is not about culture or anything. Every metro system is listed and judged by the same set or group of criteria. Every metro system has to be counted in are more or less consistent fashion. That is a standard. That is fair. Being counted in a standard way across all metro systems is fair. Being fair is only possible if you are treating every case in the same standard way. Making a new exception to the standard just because Seoul is in Korea is unfair.

Lastly if , U line was never included. The line opened in mid 2012 and consensus was reached in early 2013. You can see from the list of lines for inclusion that it was never added in the first place. You can't possibly expect us to list every line that is not to be included? Instead of reverting everything. Explain to me why it should included against the consensus and not put on a separate entry.

Its owned by the city of Uijeongbu not Seoul.

It's not directly connected to Seoul's rapid transit lines. (Seoul Metro Lines 1-4, SMRT 5-8, Line 9, Sinbundang or Korail AREX, Bundang, Gwacheon, Ilsan, Ansan.)Terramorphous (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If U Line is rapid transit, it can and should be included in the list, but as a separate entry in the table. It's clear to me from the evidence presented that it is not truly a part of the "Seoul Metro", but its own separate line. --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok well we'll wait for Masseypacers reply. There is not doubt that the U Line is rapid transit. Its not connected to and owned by Seoul like Incheon was.Terramorphous (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you even know what you are talking about with Yongsan Line, which refers to the section between DMC and Yongsan Station ONLY. Learn about Korean subways first before you even start to make a claim against it. Is there through operation between AREX's Seoul Station to Gongdeok? No. Zero. ONLY AREX subway cars. What is disturbing is that you keep writing that I'm claiming on a diferent consensus, yet your claims are made on an entirely different issue - All you did from the reverts is discount U Line, yet, there was no discussion on this but on AREX. You are refusing to discuss on this matter, using the discussion on AREX and then discounting an entirely different line. Where is the logic in this? Massyparcer (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly the U line is discussed here. In fact there is 3 points being discussed. The inclusion of the U Line, future of the AREX, and should they be added or put as separate entries on the list. The original consensus was to exclude the U line as it was connected to the Gyeongwon Line portion of Line 1 - not rapid transit. The U line existed when consensus was being made so this is not something new. Secondly, you keep on referring that AREX's Seoul Station to Gongdeok as Yongsan Line. OK that's fine I'm not going to argue that it doesn't matter. You made it sound like your talking about the U/C parallel commuter tunnel which is the Yongsan line I know. Regardless, AREX's section between Seoul Station to Gongdeok would not count. As you have said there no through operation. That makes my arguments stand. The only way you can get a rapid transit section to count and disregard the conditions on the other non rapid transit sections line is to through operate with a metro company, like Line 1. If Seoul Metro or SMRT owned the section between Seoul Station to Gongdeok and AREX through operated with it then you can count it. The issue is it doesn't, so like all the other underground commuter rail line sections with dedicated "metro" service like Crossrail, Passante, RER and JR West Osaka's Tozai line it doesn't count. Like I said for the 5th time if a significant part of the line is not metro then the entire line is not metro. You keep on looking at a point in a line and just indiscriminately taking those sections into the count. What I call "scraping up" metro enough sections. You must look and see if the whole line is rapid transit for it to count.Terramorphous (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

All of your claims are WP:Original research without any source. Where is your source that says a rapid transit counts only when it is connected to another rapid transit line operated metro company? Absolute nonsense. Please stop making claims with no source. The problem with this article is that people are making up way too many rules out of nowhere. It doesn't matter what the European or Japanese do - What matters is that you prove a rule through reliable sources, otherwise it is invalid and must be dropped as per WP:Original research. The U Line is clearly a metro line that fits all the definition of a rapid transit as given by the official sources:
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx#8

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." And the same applies for AREX from Gongdeok to Seoul Station. There is no source that says ownership equates to rapid transit. Completely WP:original research. "Significant part of the line is not metro then the entire line is not metro" - Whoa, just how many non-existent rules are you making out of the air? Where are your reliable sources to prove all these claims? Massyparcer (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: How Wikipedia portrays operations of the metro system depends on a case by case basis. For example, Barcelona Metro has two operators (TMB/FGC) but widely regarded as one. Meanwhile, Bangkok has the Skytrain and MRT run as seperate brands, despite having the same owner or co-owner (Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand). I don't know how to solve this, but what about two articles called "List of metro systems by operator" and "List of cities by metro system length"? It seems this article is trying to cover all their bases and struggle at it. --Marianian^(talk) 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Too complicated a solution for just one troublesome system. The obvious solution here is to split out Seoul's entry by owner, regard the whole thing as a "network" made up of multiple "systems" (as apparently outside media sources) do, and then everyone can have their cake and eat it too, as all heavy rail lines would be listed, they just wouldn't be all bundled together into one "mega-entry". The issue is that we have one or more locals implicitly dedicated to getting Seoul labeled "the longest metro system in the world", despite the fact that no outside source or reference identifies it as such. --IJBall (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

IJBall, your breach of WP:original research is getting out of control. "The obvious solution here" - Are you the all-knowing sole rule maker here or something? Sounds more like a troublesome criteria (i.e. no reliable source, made-up arbitrary numbers, user-invented rules with no sources) dealing with a new subway system neglected for too long. Where are your sources saying that it is a network made up of multiple systems? Letting alone the fact that network and system is the same thing. You're continuing to make things up out of the air. Numerous sources so far only show that it has been a single system. Nobody is interested in having a cake as you describe it - We're simply interested in getting things right, as per Wikipedia policies such as WP:Original research. They aren't bundled together as you claim but have been this way for a very long time but neglected by both Wikipedia and the English media. You keep saying that no source outside identifies a subway system when this is already clearly defined by the following reliable sources:

International Association of Public Transport
American Public Transportation Association
National Transit Database
Transportation Research Board

This issue is basically a non-issue because the sources above already make it very clear what is a metro and what is not. You're simply refusing to accept Seoul Metropolitan Subway's entry for some reason, despite the fact that it meets all the criteria set out in the official sources. IJBall's logic of needing an English media report just to get a metro system listed here is seriously flawed. If we follow IJBall's logic, then we need an English media report for every subway system saying it's the 2nd longest, 3rd longest..12th longest and so on just to get them listed here, let alone the fact that media reporters are not rail experts. I will make this very clear: A metro is most reliably defined by the rail authorities, the governing bodies and the rail research institutes - Not English media reports. Massyparcer (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference - list of longest Metro Systems, from Railway Technology: [1] - note that this reference lists multiple different owners/operators of segments of Seoul's total metro network. Still, this is a reference that can be construed to support the current counting of Seoul in the Metro list table. --IJBall (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Underground or not

Latest comment: 10 years ago50 comments6 people in discussion

Long time lurker, infrequent poster, as they say: Ladies & Gentlemen, I think this list must come to a decision whether it wants to be a list of the world's real metros/subways/undergrounds/U-Bahnen etc., or whether it wants to be a list of rapid transit train systems. Both are fine with me, but it needs to be decided and enforced. The list intro says "A metro system is a rapid transit train system. In some cases, metro systems are referred to as subways or undergrounds." So what is it - strictly for the purpose of this list? If we go with "rapid transit train system" then we must look at the whole SYSTEM: Interconnected, inter-modal, joined by a common tariff, different owners and the occasional at grade crossing allowed. If we go with "metro systems that are referred to as subways or undergrounds" then we must do that.

In the first case, the U and S Bahnen of Germany definitely will be part of one system, which they are. Tokyo's many railroads will be part of one system, which they are. Who knows, the Korean edit war may even end peacefully.
In the second case, no S Bahnen. No JR in Tokyo. Subway/underground etc. only. (Someone must explain to me why the Yamanote JR counts in Tokyo, while the Keihin-Tohoku sen doesn't. Someone must tell me why the Hamburg and Berlin S Bahnen are ok, while the Munich S Bahn is being shunned - most of the Munich S lines go underground through downtown, while the Yamanote remains al fresco throughout.)

This list appears to have devolved to a list where it is a "Metro System" when it

1. Is completely separated from traffic (softly applied)
2. Is electric
3. Does not have specific station to station fares

If THAT is the case, many entries on this list would have to be combined into one big system. I have the feeling that this is not the intent. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While I generally probably agree with the overall point here, this seems to be 2 issues in one:

Should the list only count "undergrounds"?
What should qualify as a "system"?

The problem with the first is that counting only "undergrounds" would probably exclude a number of systems like Chicago's The L and San Francisco's BART (BART also violated your item #3 above...), which I think is an outcome a lot of editors around here would object too. Also, I think most of us around here think that "rapid transit" is far too "squishy" a term (being too non-specific), which is why I think the name of this list was changed in the more distant past to its current title. That said, I am definitely in the camp that thinks the current version of this list is probably too inclusive, counting a number of systems that should probably be cut.

To my mind, the second point is a greater concern presently, and ties in a lot with the recent decision to count Seoul as one "mega-system", rather than several separate systems making up a "network", which then leads to the question of why this list isn't doing the same with Berlin, Tokyo, New York City, etc. On this point, I think that a decision needs to be made that every "system" should be defined by each separate owner/operator (as is done with Berlin, among others), which gets back to my point that Seoul should be split along exactly those same lines. Because, otherwise, BsBsBs' point becomes valid, and it will start to be wondered why every city's different system isn't "bundled together" like is now done with Seoul... --IJBall (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul was already discussed in extreme length and full legal and technical evidence from both the operator and owner of that system was presented that there is only one Seoul Metropolitan Subway in existence. Any comment regarding Seoul should be posted at the appropriate discussion above. IJball, I don't see why you're ignoring the consensus again and coming with your original research of splitting Seoul which has been fully proven to be completely groundless and unsourced. You're trying to define yourself what is a network or what is a system. You need to stop doing that if you want to be a good editor, which is breaching WP:Original research. As Mattximus has repeatedly pointd out, Anything we set here must be strictly evidence based from official sources. You cannot make up rules out of nowhere. And the same goes for the criteria. A metro is already defined in the official sources and we will follow that. There is only one criteria and that's the definition from the official sources. Full stop. There is zero tolerance at Wikipedia for inventing criteria out of the air as per WP:Original research. Creating an "undergound only" criteria is a complete original research with no source that is illogical - Sections of any subway system in the world have overground parts, meaning we need to exclude pretty much any system here. This article has suffered from way too much original research created by random users, so no more of that please. If Berlin fully meets the criteria set in the sources, it should be counted in the same way. Evidence so far shows that U-Bahn and S-Bahn have a unifed fare structure and if they allow free transfers and meet all the technical criteria set in the sources, they must be counted as one. Munich S-Bahn should also be added if it fully meets the criteria here, although the problem there seems to be track sharing with conventional trains and/or the bad service frequency of 40 min, which is much more in line with commuter rails. The biggest thing that distinguishes Korean and Japanese systems is that Korean systems use a single fare structure, whereas Japanese systems use completely separate fare structures, even between Tokyo Metro and Toei where you need to buy a separate ticket to get into each others' system. JReast has a completely different fare structure as well. Most lines under JReast also have terrible service frequencies that we call ghost metros. Yamanote JR is counted because it fully meets rapid transit service frequency but listed separate from Tokyo Metro or others because it has a completely different fare structure. My only worry is that JReast seems to have specific station to station charges, which means it's a commuter rail that must be excluded. IJ you need to stop blaming Seoul which follows every law from the official sources correctly and realize that this article has for too long suffered from original research, with many neglected systems added and deleted at random users's will. Hence there will be inevitably mismatches that have to be fixed, which is your job to fix if you want to be a constructive editor, not making groundless original research claims. Please stop playing this game to circumvent Wikipedia procedures. Massyparcer (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The separate fare argument is irrelevant. In Budapest, one needs to buy separate tickets for each of the three metro lines, and still there is no single source claiming Budapest has three metro systems. And, Massyparcer, you are obviously a single-purpose accound created to prove that Seoul is the longest subway system by whatever criteria you like. Be prepared that once you opened this can of worms other systems would show up which would never come in contention before but if you insist on sources - I am pretty sure there are plenty of sources for example showing that Paris Metro and Paris RER is the same system - and Seoul would suck badly.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're a responsible editor, I advise you to read WP:No personal attacks first. Do not use rude words like "can of worms" and "suck" which are not constructive at all. Those kind of expressions lead to burn outs with other editors real fast. The separate fare argument is very relevant because you know how commuter rails are defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation? Specific station to station fares. On the other hand, metros almost never use specific station to station tickets so your Budapest example is more of an exception than the norm. You clearly haven't been following the discussion above where I have made multiple times clear about this - I don't care what is the longest system but what I do strongly care is only using fully sourced criteria from official, reliable references and direct evidence from the official owners and operators of a subway system to prove the truth. So your accusations that I'm creating a criteria at will is completely groundless. Any criteria I have ever mentioned were fully sourced from official references - These are not my words, these are the words of the authorities and institutes who know far more about rail and metros than you. The RER is a commuter rail using specific station to station fares where you need to buy a "Billet Ile-de-France" separate from the Paris Metro. Even if we follow your OR for a sec, Paris Metro and RER would have to be fully scrutinized just like Seoul going from French metro laws to full documentation from the French government and City of Paris and its official operators that directly prove they are a single system. If you have that kind of evidence, we can start to fully scrutinize its technical attributes from track sharing with other intercity trains to service frequencies, just like Seoul. As I said multiple times, Wikipedia makes it extremely clear that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Massyparcer (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let us put it straight. We used to have reliably sourced criteria for years. You did not like them, and you argued that the source is not reliable. First you decided that edit-warring is the best way to proceed, and got blocked. Then you just started to post so much text that no one could read it, and in the end everybody gave up, and you were allowed to make up any criteria you wanted to. You immediately called this consensus, and changed Shanghai to Seoul. Now wait until somebody comes who has more energy and time than you have, and will throw down the sink the criteria you made up calling the situation consensus. And the new criteria will be sourced as well. I am pretty sure this will happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior is disturbing. You're totally going off-topic here ignoring the points I have raised and attacking me again personally with groundless claims. If you have an issue with me, talk to me personally on my talk page, not attack me here for no reason. Talk about the topic at hand here and make valid points if you are a constructive editor. Nobody followed those sources that have been sitting here for long as you claim and instead did whatever they wanted to ignoring the sources, inventing rules out of the air, which we have all seen with the 10 min arbitrary rule. I have never decided that edit-warring is any way to do editing at Wikipedia, so I don't know why you are continuing to make completely groundless claims. Edit war is defined as 3 reverts or more in a 24 hour session, which I have never broken, yet you unfairly blocked me. If you are not me, then don't go around pretending to know how I think. I think you are misunderstanding me because you haven't followed the discussion - I have said that some sources are unreliable (like news media reports) or irrelevant (because they do not support the article in hand directly), yet I have never said that the official sources are unreliable. Everything I wrote is fully understandable English backed up from official sources, not groundless claims invented out of the air like so many others have done here. I would advise you to read what I said first before you go and attack me because if you have even read a bit, you will see that the criteria are from the very sources that you said have been here for a very long time. Again, prove your claim that I'm making up any criteria because the only criteria I ever used are from the very sources you said that have been here for a very long time (i.e. the rail authorities). The consensus was established after multiple weeks of discussion, so I don't see where you are going with the groundless claim that it was immediate. Stop being rude and making groundless claims, predictions, threats and curses about me that is completely irrelevant and nonconstructive and answer the questions on this issue if you are a responsible editor. Massyparcer (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The "consensus" is you, and maybe one of the editor, that you have declared to be "consensus" - no one else on this page has signed off on what you propose, and at least three of us (possibly now four of us) have strongly objected to your proposal. That isn't "consensus". You throw terms like "Original Research" and "Consensus" around in such a way that it's clear you don't fully understand what they mean. You attempt to delete references that you do not agree with (which is totally against Wikipedia policy - different references may carry different "weights", but it is, in almost all cases, wrong to delete a reference simply because you don't like what it says, or because you think "it's not official enough"). You completely ignore that this list has, as long as anyone can remember, in fact been defining Metro "systems" by owner/operator - and there is no reference that declares such a definition "wrong" or declares that a Metro system "must" be defined by unified fare structure or maps (in fact, the burden of references on that score is almost certainly the opposite). And you are also unnecessarily hostile (and insulting) to anyone who disagrees with you.

If one editor thinks all of the other editors are "out to get" him or her, the odds are high that it's not the bulk of editors who are the problem, but the one editor who thinks everyone is out to get them. --IJBall (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, IJ, if you have a personal problem with me, leave a message on my talk page. Do not attack me here personally with groundless claims, which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. See, I'm not the one who is being hostile here but primarily you and some others who seem to have not followed the discussion and misunderstood many things along the way. Either way, you are obviously trying to mislead others that the consensus was reached just by editors, when in fact a government official from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation has given very clear directions as to what is the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. We haven't based this on just consensus - In fact, this is something that doesn't need a consensus anymore because it is now fully and directly defined from the official operator. The owner and operator knows about the Seoul Metropolitan Subway far better than you or anyone else here for that matter. So don't be mistaken that it was just some consensus from users. Mattximus only disagreed because you mislead him with groundless claims originally since he probably didn't know much about Seoul's subway system which I understand. He has given no reply after direct legal evidence was presented, which is in fact a sign of consensus. As a matter of fact, it was just you who was disagreeing with no sources, which is not constructive. But this whole who is for or against doesn't matter because we now have sources that have fully proven you have been wrong for the whole time. Again, that wasn't my proposal but a very existing legal law in the official operator. Again, you're pretending to be me and claiming that I deleted a reference at will, which is complete nonsense. I have given full reasons why urbanrail.net is not a reliable source because it is a user-made fan club for subways maintained by one user with no external references. How could something like that even be considered to be on this list when it is violating WP:Sources which clearly says that personal opinion falls under questionable sources? IJ, I think you are the one who needs to read Wikipedia policies first. I will just say this one last time - Stop attacking me personally here and if you have a problem with me, then leave a message on my talk page. Because this isn't a place for fist-fighting, which is irrelevant to the discussion here. Massyparcer (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Schwandl (the publisher of UrbanRail.Net) can easily be considered an expert in this area, who has published multiple books on this subject. He certianly qualifies under WP:Sources, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who'd appreciate it if you'd stop impugning the man... --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussing anything with you is completely useless. I tried to explain you the policies after the block, and I failed. It is apparent from what you write here that you did not understand anything. If you have issues with everybody, may be you should look at the mirror first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I strongly suggest you to refrain from attacking me personally on this page. Be civil and assume good faith with any editor. I'm here to contribute, not hurt. If you have an issue with me, talk to me about it instead of making personal attacks. Massyparcer (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen: A list lives and dies by its list definition. That list definition by the way is completely up to the editors. A “list of green apples” may be compiled without needing a source that proves that apples are green. As long as the list does not contain oranges, and as long as each list entry proves that it is a green apple, you are fine. If someone decides to make a list of subways/undergrounds only, no problem – as long as it does not contain buses.

I have read the intro, and it says nothing about fare structures, or an occasionally “bad” service frequency, or ghost metros. Reading the inclusion criteria, there is nothing that should stop an editor from including the whole JR East. On its main lines, sometimes quadruple track, JR East is one of the heaviest rail you can find, with sometimes 3 minute headway and 10 car EMUs. Be it as it may, if JR East is found deficient, then the system is disqualified, and a single line such as the Yamanote may not be picked.

Again, this list must decide what it wants to be. If I recall right, it started as a list of subways/undergrounds, and this was a worthwhile and legal endeavor. It then morphed into a list of rapid transit systems. Also ok. However, this list seems to enforce different rules for different cities. This is not right at all, and it must stop. BsBsBs (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BsBsBs that a list lives and dies by its definition. And we must only use fully sourced criteria from reliable sources, not user-invented criteria. If we are not strict on this, this article will suffer random deletions and additions from random users again. To answer your question directly BsBsBs, this is a list of metro systems (which can be both under or overground), and we have definitions of what a metro is from the sources in this article, which you have correctly pointed out is electric, has its own right of way and so on. The intro does not contain the fare structure because the intro is just that - An intro. You need to look at the sources inside the intro and you will find that the U.S. Department of Transportation defines commuter rail as being " 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."

Source: National Transit Database - http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm

So according to the Federal Transit Authority, JReast is officially a commuter rail, not a metro because it has specific station to station fares. I agree with BsBsBs that Yamanote should be removed since it follows the same fare structure as any other JREast line and is hence a commuter rail. Massyparcer (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't totally disagree here. But I think at this point, maybe a suggested course of action is in order so that there's a plan to move forward for here.

Currently, the criteria for inclusion in this list is basically:

Is completely grade-separated from all other forms of traffic.
Is electrically powered (i.e. so rules out all diesel trains).
Has high traffic volume - e.g. 20,000-30,000 ppdph or better. (This criteria used to be the "10 minute or better headways during peak hours" cutoff criteria, and I'd still argue that this is an appropriate stand-in for volume of traffic...)
Primarily serves one city or metropolitan area (i.e. to eliminate intercity rail, and interurbans, I guess).

Basically, the definition for this list is that a system be "heavy rail", which is a narrower definition than "rapid transit" which would also include Monorails and potentially even some basically "light rail" systems.

So I guess my question is - how would you change this criteria? Would you add to it something like - is primarily underground (i.e. >50% underground)? Because, again, that would eliminate a lot of systems currently on the list like Chicago's L and San Francisco's BART.

FTR, I'm actually starting to think a separate list for (primarily) subway/underground systems might not be a bad idea... --IJBall (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with the what IJ said here - It's not just BART or L but that most metros have overground sections and we can't use an invented arbitrary number like 50% underground. Again, no original research please. Heavy rail is the American term referring to rapid transit according to the page you showed us and in British English it refers to intercity rail. I don't think it makes much sense to create another list for subways/undergrounds when they're perceived by the outside world essentially as the same thing as a metro. Besides, no such criteria from an official source exists to even start such a list. Massyparcer (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Subways are "not the same thing as Metros" - they are a subset of Metros (i.e. those Metros that operate primarily underground). Now whether a separate list for that is warranted I'll leave up to others and consensus. But the criteria for establishing such a list would be clear. --IJBall (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And where is your source of that definition? The dictionary defines both metro and subways as "underground electric railway", so they're clearly the same thing. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metro?s=t, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subway?s=t Massyparcer (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read Passenger rail terminology - Metros encompass subway, elevated and at-grade systems; Subways are a subset of these systems: those that operate underground. --IJBall (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia as a source doesn't help when that article itself has a big citation needed mark at the top with the subway portion having absolutely no sources. Seems like complete original research to me. Show me an external, reliable and official source that defines subway. Here is an official source, the American Public Transportation Association, which says that metros and subways are the same thing: "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." Source: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx#8 Massyparcer (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And in one reply you have proven Ymblanter correct, up-thread. So, once again, I'm going to refrain from replying to you, because it really is pointless.

Instead, let's see what BsBsBs has to say... --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with you, is your ignorance towards other editor's you don't like. You have declared multiple times to ignore me, which is not constructive. Clearly, you have been proven completely wrong there above IJ by APTA. Stop inventing definitions out of the air. Massyparcer (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Still I don't agree that Seoul gets amalgamated into one. I mean Guangzhou and Foshan just got separated a little while ago and they connected, rapid transit, same fare structure {insert Massyparcer arguments}. In addition I am worried about the rashness of the change in Seoul's count and how it totally disregarded what I originally argued (and every section under that). In addition I didn't really see a consensus for Seoul's final number.Terramorphous (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone can list all of the owners or operators of the various components of the Seoul rapid transit network, I'm willing to take the heat for it and split Seoul again in the table (a la Berlin, Tokyo, and pretty much every other entry in this table). (Once split, we can then really try to figure out which components are truly "heavy rail" and which are not...) But, despite what Massyparcer says, I don't think there is proper "consensus" for the way Seoul is currently counted (only Massyparcer +1 are really for it), so let's just split it again... --IJBall (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion so I suggest any comment related to Seoul being discussed in the appropriate sections on this talk page. Massyparcer (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul should be split back, since there was clearly no consensus for presenting it as one system.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There was significant consensus from the legal law of the official operator and its owner, the South Korean government. Again, stop drifting this discussion off-topic and make any comment related to Seoul in its section above. Massyparcer (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We are going to discuss this topic wherever we find it appropriate. You are not a moderator of this page, and your track record is far from perfect. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A section for discussing Seoul already exists and that's where precisely this kind of discussion should be posted. BsBsBS originally posted about whether we should sort subways by underground systems or not, so you're again drifting this discussion to something totally unrelated. Posting "wherever" you want as you like doesn't work in Wikipedia my friend. Massyparcer (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me how Wikipedia works. It is particularly pleasant to hear from a single-purpose account with one month track record and less than 1000 edits. Just to make sure, it you start moving discussions around, you will likely end up with your account blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you are as experienced as you claim with more edit counts than me, I suggest you behave civil and not attack another editor personally like you have done before using rude words and threaten to block somebody. Again you really need to re-read WP:AGF. Massyparcer (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can not block you any more as I am involved. I will expose your behavior to the community, and you likely will be community banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on what? Blocking somebody because you simply don't like him is clearly ridiculous. Let's see how your deliberately hostile behavior towards me involving repeated use of personal attacks and rude words get viewed by the community. Massyparcer (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, it is worth taking one step (or in this case, many steps) back, and to review the list’s fundamentals. We should also try to forget for a minute that we are trainspotting writers, we should at least attempt to see the list through the eyes of the reader.

This list claims that it is a "List of metro systems." The reader rightly expects one to follow. Let’s not forget: The reader came here after looking for a "List of metro systems." We should not cheat the reader.

The list starts out to say that "a metro system is a rapid transit train system. In some cases, metro systems are referred to as subways or undergrounds." The reader might be slightly perplexed for a second. Then, he or she will assume that "subways or undergrounds" is what the authors mean.

This is amplified by the choice of pictures, which, according to lore, say more than a thousand words, each. The pictures (from Seoul, NYC, and London) all show subways/undergrounds. The reader sees his expectations of a list of subways/undergrounds visually confirmed.

The next chapter, "considerations" will likely be skipped by the reader. It will cause a "my eyes glaze over" in many. They will read, if they really read it, that a metro may not be a metro even if it is called a metro. Lost by the arcana of light and heavy rail, and the nuances of level crossings in sentences that are heavily laced with disclaimers ("almost always," "primarily,") the reader is likely to head straight for the list itself, expecting a list of subways/undergrounds.

This however, is not what the reader gets.

We may also assume that many readers are not as worldly as the well-traveled editors of this list. The readers take this information at face value. After all, it is from Wikipedia. The traveling reader will be very astonished to learn first hand, that, simply as a for instance, the Shanghai Metro system is not as first class as it seems on this list. On a stopover in Tokyo, the metro system there will peresent itself as competent, while this list gives it Third World status.

This is where responsibility comes in. We owe it to the reader that the information is fairly reliable, and that the list has been compiled with a consistent set of rules. We should set squabbles and boosterism aside, and provide solid information.

Again, this list needs to decide what it wants to be. Once this decision has been made, the list must safeguard and enforce its identity.

*Does the list want to be a list of subways/undergrounds?

*Or does it want to be a list of rapid transit systems?

Both would be lists that provide notable and important information. As for the list of subways/undergrounds, I don’t buy into the argument that this list would be stillborn, simply because many trains see the light of day. Only fervent Wikilawyers will say the New York subway is not a subway, because it emerges behind whitegloved 96th Street and completes its Bronx-bound journey in the open air. Taking this silly position would simply bring out other even sillier Wikilawyers who argue that no subway/underground deserves the name, because of their open air depots.

While a list of subways/undergrounds would be easy to make (once the Wikilawyers have been deported to a trainless island,) a true list of rapid transit SYSTEMS would excite me more. I am thinking of integrated, multi-modal SYSTEMS as they present themselves to the customer/rider. I really would be interested in which city provides the most comprehensive integrated rapid transit solution, and I don’t care which one comes out on top. I might move there, however.

Also, as editors, we sometimes have to acknowledge that a source is outdated, and has been overtaken by events. As worldly editors of a worldwide list, we sometimes have to ditch a source with too narrow a worldview. This does not relieve us from the solemn obligation to base everything we write on solid sources. Who says it’s easy.BsBsBs (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem that has been beaten to death is actually what we call a metro. As soon as we are talking about the US things seem to be fine. But moving to other countries, and particularly to non-English speaking countries, brings the trouble closer. For example, I grew up in Moscow which by all parameters has a top-ten subway or metro system in the world. The system is called Russian: метрополитен, the short form is Russian: метро. There is no official English translation, or, to be more precise, there are several official translations, including apid transit, metro, and subway. I am sure I can bring sources for any of those, and the sources will be reliable by all Wikipedia standards. Moreover, the system is mostly underground (which is strictly kosher), it has several open stretches, but nobody ever tried to subtract those and count the number of stations without them. But in 2003? they opened an open stretch which they call "light metro" and which has much longer intervals. Should we count it? And officially, they count some transfer stations as one station and some as two stations - should we follow? Until the Massyparcer disaster, we used the standards adopted by urbanrail.net. Whatever they count as a metro we also counted as a metro. In my opinion, the most reasonable thing would be to return to these criteria as universally accepted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I suggest you to stop being deliberately hostile to me for some reason and behave civil. Calling me a disaster isn't constructive. Massyparcer (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input BsBsBs. 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". It makes complete sense if you think from the rider and reader's perspective. Not everybody is a rail expert and quite frankly, an encyclopedia should reflect how it operates in the real world, as User:Minsuk Cho pointed out. As for the list for only undergrounds, a metro is defined by APTA as being the same thing as underground/subways (just different terminology) so I don't think it would be helpful to create such an article. To answer your question directly, this list should be a list of rapid transit systems (which is the same thing as metro/underground/subway) as per APTA's definition. Massyparcer (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: It appears to depend on what we want to hear. Criteria that are gregariously overlooked in one city are used as knock-out arguments elsewhere. For instance, the Shanghai entry is proud to count the Maglev line and the Jinshan Railway. In other cities, there would have been loud complaints that a Maglev has neither steel wheels nor rubber tyres, and possibly, the whole network would be disqualified, because a Jinshan is a very fast commuter railway. I vaguely recall that the Munich’s S-Bahn was completely knocked off the list, because one picturesque line in Dachau (which I still remember as steam operated) was diesel-driven. A level crossing on the outskirts of Hamburg kept this list S-Bahn free until sanity prevailed. Munich’s S-Bahn, since 1972 integrated with Munich’s U-Bahn into one System, does not exist according to this list. The system of the JR, as a further for instance, according to this list does either not exist completely, or only as the Yamanote line. It is an integral part of Tokyo’s mass transit. With some 141 stations in the Tokyo Metro area, one can go nearly anywhere in Tokyo while using the JR alone. This huge system has been knocked off this with facetious arguments. Maybe, it is too hard to grasp, because trains enter on one side of the metro as commuter trains, they turn into true metro trains in the city, only to exit on the other side. Or maybe, the JR's 16.5 million passengers per day are simply too threatening. This is one case where development out-dates old definitions.

@Massyparcer: It also would help to become as thick-skinned as required for a WP editor, and not to complain too loudly about personal attacks.BsBsBs (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen and ladies. I worried that there would be another debates that would go on this page, and it's just as I've worried. I'm apparently not reading all of the discussion above, as I myself is a very busy person, and I expect from previous debates that the content would be very repetitive. So, if there's something I'm missing, do not hesitate to tell me. First, IJBall, I've read your first comment for the arousal of topic. I have emphasized what you are concerning now multiple times before. This document has minimal or even no criteria. Categorizing by metro is a real weird-o. You may think, as I've worried before, that the criteria for Korean system is flawed, but if you think about other countries' systems, you wouldn't be able to make a consensus. You will have to ignore many systems that are still regarded as metro service in their homeland, failing to reflect what really is over the world. An encyclopedia that is different to world - being theoretical- is useless. No one would want to make Wikipedia as a useless service. For many Far East Metro services, which are the systems that were put into discussion, have reached a minimal consensus, as there weren't any questions raised nor refutes during a very long time. Also, I've provided answer from Korean Ministry of Traffic Control, which must be reliable to Wiki standards. However, I personally also think that this decision is a very temporary one. What we need to do now, by discussing, is to create a new criteria, reflecting reliable sources and worldwide circumstances. I, as proposed several times before, propose to change the categorization of metro-like systems (Metro, Light RT) to more physical category: Heavy Rail Transit, Light Rail Transit, etc. If you keep raising questions about Seoul system, what would you say about Seoul Line 1, when it is connected to Cheongju, as it is planned? Is it part of Seoul system? part of Cheongju? It isn't both in concrete manner, as it doesn't go to Cheongju metropolitan area. Defining metros using circumstances now is not only a troublesome thing to do but also a very illogical thing to do. Let's make a new criteria. Thanks. MinSik CHO (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@BsBsBs Again I agree that there are overlooked systems that may have been excluded despite them meeting the definitions. I think Shanghai Metro's footnote says that "This figure excludes Maglev line and Line 22", so that hasn't been included. Jinshan Railway is also already excluded (it was formerly called Line 22). If Munich S-Bahn uses diesel trains, it doesn't meet the definition of using only electric trains, but if this is an exception rather than the norm, then we can reconsider including Munich back to the list. But again, Munich S-Bahn has service frequency of 40 min at times, so it appears to be much more like a commuter rail than a real metro. I think we need to sort out what is a metro and commuter rail in that case. JR again, is not included because it is a commuter rail as per U.S. Department of Transportation's definition since it uses specific station to station fares. It has been in the commuter rail list for a very long time and Yamonote should be removed as BsBsBs mentioned previously. See List of suburban and commuter rail systems.

@MinSik CHO I agree with Cho on many points and this discussion about Seoul is getting extremely repetitive from certain users like IJBall who have admitted to have no experience with it, let alone having been on it. The people who have direct experience and actually rode the Seoul Subway many times I believe is Cho and me, where they're treated as a single subway system by anyone you can possibly ask who uses this system regularly. It's a completely seemless experience with free transfers, unified fares and even the exact same subway cars on almost all lines built by Hyundai Rotem. Even the official operator and the South Korean government agree with us, so what more consensus do we need than that?? How more accurately could you possibly define than that?? Seriously, I believe we should only make criteria out of fully reliable sources. I doubt even other metro systems are as reliably defined as Seoul - I mean, this system has the government and official operator's legal law as a source, so discussing about any split is going completely against the real world and invented original research nonsense by users who simply don't want to accept the truth because it is too threatening since it's a big system just like BsBsBS pointed out with JReast. Learn to accept the reality people rather than deny it with pointless original research claims and dirty tactics like personal attacks, insults and threats to scare off the very people who are trying to voice the truth. It's like trying to hide the sky with your hands. It is our instinct to deny reality, but seriously, not in Wikipedia. Not in an encyclopedia which should only reflect the truth. Massyparcer (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@MinSik CHO: "Categorizing by metro" (i.e. by owner/operator) is how this list has always been done. Maybe that's considered "weird" in Korea, but it makes perfect sense to categorize it that way most everywhere else. Getting back to BsBsBs's point, this list is the "List of metro systems" not the "List of metropolitan rapid transit networks". --IJBall (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which makes perfect sense in Western countries as you say. Not for Korean systems I'm afraid that are owned by governments. Massyparcer (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

But they're owned or operated by city governments, yes? (For example, the Incheon Subway page says that it's owned by "Incheon City Government".) If so, that's not much different from elsewhere in the world... --IJBall (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. City governments are owned by the central government, which is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, where Cho got a reply from one of its official. MOLIT funds and own almost all metro systems in South Korea. In turn, the Korea Railroad Authority is a government body contracted to build and maintain the metro systems. So your logic doesn't work I'm afraid. Massyparcer (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to recommend not to complain too loudly about Original Research while applying leaps of logic that would be the very definition of Original Research.

According to Massyparcer, "a metro is defined by APTA as being the same thing as underground/subways (just different terminology)." Not true.

In its current glossary, the APTA defines neither "metro" nor "underground/subways." The APTA simply says that "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." Meaning that, by APTA's definition, metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail can all be called "heavy rail." It does not say that "metro" is the same thing as "underground/subway." (It also doesn't say that it is not.)

In the same definitions, the APTA says that "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." Applying the same leap of logic as above, a "metro" (short for "metropolitan rail") would be the same as "commuter rail," something that is loudly opposed around here.

The old APTA 1994 Glossary of Transit Terminology says "Metropolitan Railway (Metro) see Rail, Heavy." That definition basically is as above. Same caveats for reverse logic apply.

As for "heavy rail," it has been repeatedly noted that this can mean different things around the world. A list covering metro systems around the world should be sensitive to these differences. When these occur, it is always helpful to look for a global organization for a more universal definition. That would be the UITP. In a media backgrounder, sadly gone from the web, but preserved in Google cache the UITP says:

""What are metros?

Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service.

Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service. In some cities there is simply a lack of urban space to enable a sufficient surface transport system. In such cases, the metro clearly can be an attractive option.

Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems.

In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube.

Metro networks are the vital arteries of urban centres for business, living, education and entertainment."

This definition should be read and treated carefully, and to avoid accusations of Original Research, nothing should be read into it that is not written into it.

Back to my point above, a "List of Metro systems" can either be a list of Metros, or it can be a list of systems of metros, but it can't be one in one city and the other elsewhere.BsBsBs (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BsBsBs that we need an internationally agreed definition, which is that from UITP. As a matter of fact, I have their definition all alive here published in November 2003 that clearly says "an official UITP position" on the bottom of each page: An official UITP position which defines metro as "an electrically powered train operating

on reserved tracks in urban areas". Their definition is the sole internationally agreed consensus and as BsBsBs has pointed out, "nothing should be read into it that is not written into it." That means no arbitrary numbers or rules that IJBall likes to add. No more original research please.

This is an official position of UITP, the International Association of Public Transport. UITP has over 2000 members
in 80 countries throughout the world and represents the interests of key players in this sector. Its membership includes transport authorities, operators, both private and public, in all modes of collective passenger transport, and the industry. UITP addresses the economic, technical, organisation and management aspects of passenger transport,
as well as, the development of policy for mobility and public transport world-wide.

Massyparcer (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014

(UTC)

In that case, the matter can be condensed down to "Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation."

Is that what we want? BsBsBs (talk) 13:17, 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. The U.S. Department of Transportation's definition of commuter rail should also be taken into account to distinguish metros from commuter rails. And that means no specific station to station fares for metros, which is the characteristic of a commuter rail. Source: National Transit Database. Massyparcer (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so trying to condense your point here - are you saying that the problem with the list currently is that systems with at-grade crossings are included, and by definition should not be? Because the only problem with the list as I currently see it is that there are a few systems that either have a minimal number of at-grade crossings but are still included, and a few more systems that likely fail the "high capacity of service" criteria but are still included.

Beyond that, I don't see much in the list that "fails" the definitions that you've laid out above... --IJBall (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IJBall, if you're worried about Chicago L being excluded because of at-grade crossings, don't worry. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines "heavy rail passenger cars" as being "usually operated on exclusive right-of-way (ROW)", so they do make exceptions for that system. Source: National Transit Database. Massyparcer (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the UITP definition, it appears as if the "at grade crossings" were invented as a knock-out. UITP talks of "physical separation" and a railway crossing gate separates physically, just like it does on the big railroad.BsBsBs (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)