Talk:Porto Metro

Porto Metro

Firstly, I'd like to invite anyone interested in Porto to join WikiProject Porto. The project is currently in my userspace and will be moved to project space if enough people join.

Secondly, User:PedroPVZ and I have had a discussion about the "services" on line D. I personally feel that the Line D trains that stop at Polo U. do not constitute a separate service to those that carry on to H. Sao Joao, in the way that the "Express" on line B is a separate service.

Thirdly, the bluelinks to related concepts, rather than articles about the stations themselves, can be replaced with links to article about the stations themselves. There is no need to remove the bluelinks to related concepts, but I am creating articles about some of the stations and hope other will follow suit, especially if a photo or something unique about the station itself can be included. Deizio 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• hmmm, seems ok. But I still see the Expresso and the two services in line D as having the same value, but the best would be to include a map of the network, this article needs a lot of work. About the stations, you have a point, Trindade station is the work of Siza Vieira for instance, and some underground stations were a nice job in architecture and engineering. As for the grade level stations, Souto Moura has done a not so good job (in fact, pretty bad comparing to the underground ones) and a scheme to change them is underway. Except for the Airport station, that is above ground, but it is very nice. About Porto, there's a lot to tell, and I'm a little scared about the work that will give. --Pedro 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can we use a map from the official site? Or maybe even an edited one.

Merge with List of Porto metro stations

Shouldn't we merge this page with the one that lists the metro stations? Actually, it wouldn't be a merge since the page that only lists the station names is already included within this one, except for minor details. I see no need for duplicate information. Alternatively this article would focus only on the history of the metro system in Porto and the other would focus on the network. If the latter is preferred we should take the network part out of this article and link to the article with the network. I won't reintroduce the merger proposal I once did but this is my reasoning for it and I believe it still stands. --JoaoCastro 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've redirected the list to the metro page, no point maintaining both lists. If the main article gets beefed up they can be split but its not worth it at the moment. Deizio 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Images of the trains?

For an article on the Metro do Porto, this article is lacking a little in photos of the actual trains... I haven't taken my camera out the last few times I rode on it, but I might try snapping a few next time I get the chance... 87.196.19.133 10:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Argh. That was me. Cctoide 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've got a bunch of metro pics, I just haven't had the time to put a lot of them up. I'm dithering over whether to put up more articles about stations, I created IPO (station) because it looks nice, and I've got more photos and stuff for Trindade (station) but others?? I got some of Lapa which has interesting graffiti but not sure if its terribly notable. Combatentes should look good when it's finished and there's potential to tie in stuff about the war and naming of the area, however I'll likely be gone by that time. Articles on Metro stations tend to be immune from deletion by common practice but there should be something to say. Anyway, my thoughts on this are at the brand spanking new Wikipedia:WikiProject Porto, all welcome. Deizio 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ticket

• I removed the image of an andante ticket, it was too big and, imho, didn't add anything. The andante logo would be better, and a picture of a ticket being scanned in front of a machine would be best. Deizio 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • nice pic. thanks. --JoaoCastro 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I re-introduced the page about the Andante ticket. I feel it is important to have a page describing the card technology in more detail. The Porto Metro page focuses on the pricing, use and zoning. The ticket page focuses on the system behind it and what was the first major roll-out of a fully contactless ticketing system in the world. There are several other articles describing the ticketing technology and cards around the world. I don't know as many details about the Andante system but take a look at the Octopus_card used in Hong-Kong for reference. --JoaoCastro 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure on the pic... the separate Andante article should be good as JC has shown an interest in exploring the technology. Deizio 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some needed info, if you want to clean plz do. The history section is poor, and info can be found in the Portuguese article (it misses completly the major change in the metro recently (the opening of the major section of the red line.)

An the pic of the ticket being validated is pretty cool, and maybe I'll stop seeing some wierd things that people do with the ticket. LOL.--Pedro 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Biggest construction site in Europe

I find this claim rather dubios. Especially considering that Madrid was building around the same time 40 km of subway tunnel (if not more). I fail to see how tunneling 40 kilometers of subway would be a "less big" construction site then a light rail system that is only marginally longer.

Eboracum 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. What about the huge renovation works Berlin underwent since the fall of the Berlin wall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.255.136 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MetroPorto-logo.jpg

Image:MetroPorto-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Porto 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929013111/http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion/diarioeconomico/nacional/empresas/pt/desarrollo/747268.html to http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion/diarioeconomico/nacional/empresas/pt/desarrollo/747268.html
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090624080606/http%3A//www.metrodoporto.pt/document/827457/888020.pdf to http://www.metrodoporto.pt/document/827457/888020.pdf

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) 01:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Revising and completing information in network section

The current network section is incomplete and it repeats a lot of information from the history section (which is already not so extensive). I'd suggest considering what information should be there and whether this line by line breakdown is necessary. Details such as travel time and frequency could be summarized either into a table or into a general operations section.

Lastly, I'll provide with a link where one can see some statistics by line: https://observatorio.amt-autoridade.pt/home FilipeMRGouveia (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion: I tend to agree with you. If I find time in the next months, I will create a table or something similar. And thank you for the link: the statistics are really up to date (2022). KatVanHuis (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Name change

I think the name change from 'Metro do Porto' to 'Porto Metro' is problematic. Though the network is well maintained, extensive and useuful, it's clearly "only" a light rail system. I prefer to keep the Portugese name to avoid confusion, similar to the other light rail line near Lisbon: Metro Transportes do Sul. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello FilipeMRGouveia and other readers. In connection to my remark (August 25th), I'd like to ask: what's your personal preference? Either A. Metro do Porto, B. Lightrail in Porto or C. a new title? KatVanHuis (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @KatVanHuis, thank you for bringing up this issue :) . Personally, I do not particularly mind the name "Porto metro" as a translation of "Metro do Porto", the official transport's name. Porto's Metro could be an alternative translation, but it doesn't sound correct to me personally for an article name. In other article pages for systems called "Metro de xxxx" in other Latin based language countries, they seem to translate it similarly (see Madrid Metro or Bogotá Metro).

I think either keeping the current name or changing it to its native name "Metro do Porto" (as is the case with Berlin U-Bahn) are both valid options and I'm not partial to either, but I am less keen in the name "Lightrail in Porto". I think the average reader may have a harder time finding the article or may find it confusing. That said, I do think that the difference between metro and light rail is technically important and could/should be briefly highlighted in the article. Lastly, I'd highlight that Metro do Porto is not unique in calling itself "Metro", while being a light rail system (see Tyne and Wear Metro). FilipeMRGouveia (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello FilipeMRGouveia and thank you for your detailed reply. Indeed "Metro do Porto" is the official name and that is totally fine as Wikipedia can both use that name and explain the light rail alignment. Thanks for the thought on the Madrid Metro, yet that is an article about a "real" metro and so a translation to English is easy to accept. For the additional and more complicated system, the native name is still used: Metro Ligero.

I had not yet noticed the native name for the Berlin network: thank you for pointing that out. I will then drop my suggestion "Lightrail in Porto" as it is not a common name-style at Wikipedia. I will change it back to "Metro do Porto" after a few days of waiting for more opinions.

PS: indeed Metro do Porto is not unique in calling itself "Metro", there's also Muni Metro which is (like Metro Ligero and Metro do Porto) a network combining tram and metro aspects. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Porto Metro → Metro do Porto – Although being a great network for being well maintained, extensive and useful, it's clearly "only" a light rail system. I prefer to use the Portugese name to avoid confusion, similar to the light rail line near Lisbon: Metro Transportes do Sul. Additionally the new name is mildly more popular. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. 162 etc. (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @162 etc.

  • WP:COMMONNAME contains several suggestions, one of them stating to follow the majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. Here it show that "Metro do Porto" is more popular. I'm curious what part you are referring to instead?
  • WP:UE also contains several suggestions, one shows that "Rheintal" and "Moseltal" are translated to "Rhine Valley" and "Moselle Valley". But the Portugese use of Metro is wider than the English use of Metro, so it can't be directly translated. Any thoughts on this translation problem?

  KatVanHuis (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @162 etc., upon a closer look at WP:UE, if found: " If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." Indeed, as it's translated currently, we lose a lot of accuracy as the system is light rail and not metro. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your proposed title also uses "Metro", and additionally is not in English, so how does it provide "greater understanding for the English-speaking reader"? 162 etc. (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly: we win nothing with translating. "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done ... with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.'"

  But with not translating, we won't lose a great deal of accuracy.

  Also, the very first sentence in the article would make more sense ->

  "The Porto Metro (Portuguese: Metro do Porto) is a light rail network in Porto" could become:

  "Metro do Porto is the official name of a light rail network in Porto" KatVanHuis (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I could not disagree more. 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:USEENGLISH. 'Metro do Porto' makes no sense in English. Also, NGrams can be abused. (edit) Will also point out all the rapid transits listed as part of {{Rapid transit in Europe}} and that we should observe WP:CONSISTENT and use the construct '<city name> Metro'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hello YorkshireExpat, the RM-pages is advising to use NGrams. How can it be abused? KatVanHuis (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @KatVanHuis well my link shows that 'Porto Metro' is the most common construct. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think stating that NGrams can be abused is very unnecessary. The standard 'smoothing' is set to 3: I didn't even check that option while creating this link.

  Your link merely shows that 'Porto Metro' was the most popular one in 2022. Which one is more popular in 2024: we don't know. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  It can be abused in the sense that I could tweak the settings and get it to support my point of view. Maybe the most representative option is to set smooting to zero. Anyway, use of NGrams is not uncontroversial around here.

  Also the NGrams data for your link only goes up to 2022. That's the latest data they have. Indeed scrolling down, it appears they don't have anything for 'Metro do Porto' past 2019! YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  With smoothing set to zero, one can see many peaks. With smoothing set to max, one can s see the cumulative numbers for both constructs.

  Scrolling down, clicking and manually changing the dates to 2023 and 2024, yields hits in these years.

  And if it is not uncontroversial, how come it was advised to use it? KatVanHuis (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's just something you can use for evidence. On it's own, particularly with such a small corpus, it may not be reliable. What the guidance doesn't say is 'change based on Ngrams alone'. It's simply one tool in an argument for evidence you might offer up. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  And that's why I wrote: "Additionally the new name is mildly more popular"

  Will also point out it's not in your rapid transit list, because it's not rapid transit. So why not consistently name it in Portugese, in line with Portugal's other light rail network? KatVanHuis (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  The distinction feels arbitrary. If they call it a metro, and we call it a metro, then it's a metro. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  the term "metro" has a different meaning in Portugal, so what they call it is arbitrary. The Metro do Porto is not even close to a metro system by definition.

  Also, applying the duck test will fail here. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I refer you to the first line of Light rail. Also Manchester's system is called Metrolink, and this looks to be more typical tram/light rail than the Porto system. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  • "Light rail (or light rail transit, abbreviated to LRT) is a form of passenger urban rail transit using rolling stock derived from tram technology while also having some features from heavy rapid transit." Yes, that's all nice but what do you intend to say with it?
  • Well, Machester uses 147 vehicles derived from the the Stadtbahnwagen and Porto's first and third generation trams ate purely city trams. In this respect, Porto is a more typical tram system.

  KatVanHuis (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 'Metro do Porto' makes no sense in English is a weird comment. Most foreign-language names make no sense in English, but we most certainly don't translate every single one. In fact, "metro" isn't an English word either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  'Do' is a word in English, and also, it appears, in Portuguese. If you read the construct 'Metro do Porto' in English, it makes no sense, unless you have some weird grammar rules where you come from, or the word 'do' is used in a different way. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  To me it was clear that 'do' is used in a different way, as is the pronunciation. And then also the Berlin "U-Bahn" also doesn't make sense. B-coz: does "You-Bahn" makes sense in English? Is there a "My-Bahn" as well? KatVanHuis (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Clear to whom? You or me, or someone who is learning English and has no knowledge of Portuguese?

  U-Bahn is clearly not English, and the word 'autobahn' is commonly used in UK press. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wrote: "to me". The same grammar style is also used in Italian and in Spanish.

  U-Bahn is clearly not English indeed, and yet part of several titles of the English version of Wikipedia. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you did write 'to me', but WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT. You are biased, as are we all. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per the Ngrams, per WP:USENATIVE "there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage" and because the current translated title is misleading and the proposed title will actually make it clearer for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:USENATIVE and WP:UE do appear to contradict each other here; I'll note that the former is only a naming convention, while the latter is policy. 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  They complement each other. For cases with very clearly established usage different to native usage, such as Germany instead of Deutschland, we use an English-translation. For cases where usage of an English-translation is less dominant, as here, we use the native name. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's not what WP:UE says. "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it". 162 etc. (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  It actually says: "'If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy". How is tagging it a 'metro' while being lightrail even close to accurate? KatVanHuis (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to a different translation, if consensus determines so. 162 etc. (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  And if so, then what? Something along the line of "Lightrail in the Porto region"? KatVanHuis (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.