Talk:Xizhimen station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xizhimen Station. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140109144501/http://www.bjjtw.gov.cn/gzdt/ywsds/201302/t20130207_71407.htm to http://www.bjjtw.gov.cn/gzdt/ywsds/201302/t20130207_71407.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Absurd reverting

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And yet some people are repeatedly inserting ridiculous text into the article which contravenes this concept. The paragraph as it was was obviously not up to encyclopaedic standard, and yet when I removed it, someone who appears to be an administrator restored it, saying "what is the problem?" They put it all back a second time, saying "it is not ridiculous trivia, pls discuss." I am very troubled by their failure to perceive any issue with the text I removed. To claim it is not ridiculous trivia would be shameful for anyone, but an administrator it is appalling.

Another person put most of the text I removed back, even while stating in their edit summary that it is "not very well written". If you put not-very-well-written material into an article, knowing that it does not meet the standards required of an encyclopaedia article, you are deliberately harming the quality of the encyclopaedia; in other words, vandalising it.

The text currently reads:

The transfer from Line 2 to Line 13 involves climbing stairs, taking an escalator, and going through the relief area. The total length of the transfer is about 400 meters. The transfer from Line 13 to Line 4 is 310 meters.

This is a true embarrassment. So what if it involves climbing stairs? So what if it involves taking an escalator? So what if it involves going the relief area? What, in any case, is a "relief area"? So what if the distance is 400m? Nothing in this text has any encyclopaedic value. It is useful or interesting. It is not even verifiable.

One of the reverters linked to an article about a New York subway station, claiming that this article describes the transfer passage in a similar way. It does not.

So perhaps one of the reverters can explain what value they see in this section. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The info about how the three stations are located with respect to each other is clearly encyclopedic. It may be indeed formulated better, but I see absolutely no reason to remove this sourced material.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not sourced material. The link is broken. Even if it were sourced, verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. There are not three stations, there are three lines which connect at one station. And like any connection in any metro system, you have to leave a train and walk for a bit to get to another train. The details of the route are of zero interest. Like I asked above: So what if it involves climbing stairs? So what if it involves taking an escalator? So what if it involves going the relief area? What, in any case, is a "relief area"? So what if the distance is 400m?

Please explain why you think this is "clearly encyclopaedic". 124.154.166.56 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have different opinions on what "encyclopedic" means. The best course of action in this situation would be to open an RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not first explain why you think it's "clearly encyclopaedic"? So what if it involves climbing stairs? So what if it involves taking an escalator? So what if it involves going the relief area? What, in any case, is a "relief area"? So what if the distance is 400m? 124.154.166.56 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I do not care about stairs or escalator, I do care about the mutual disposition of the stations. If the distance is 400 m and the info is sourced it should be in the article. You argument is a strawman. I can also continue like this: "Who cares that the name of the station is Xizhimen"? "Why the hell is the info that it is in Beijing encyclopedic"? and so on. This is not a way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The name of the station is unique to the station, and if you omit it, the article obviously makes no sense. The distance you have to walk from one line to another is utterly trivial and of no consequence whatsoever. And I told you, the information is not even sourced. It is very clear from your reverting habits that what you object to is anonymous editing. You reverted every edit I made, no matter how obviously necessary.

You have not explained your position adequately. I am removing this trivia from the article. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Xinhuanet article (archive) cited does, in fact, mention the lengths of the passageways and the article was written because the transfers are unusually long and someone drew a 3D diagram of the station (see picture). Ymblanter, should the text be restored regardless? Jc86035 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, a dead link can still be used as a source if it is archived in Webcite or the Internet Archive. A newspaper article from 1956 is a reliable source, even if out of print and only available in the basement of a library. Jc86035 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy if someone worked on the text, but even like this it is better to have in the article than not to have it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I find your understanding of encyclopaedic standards to be laughable. You have not explained at all why you think this material is valuable. It is not useful or interesting. It is ridiculous. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And I find your understanding to be laughable and ridiculous, so what? --Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your attitude is really obnoxious. Edit seriously, and improve the article according to the standards of the encyclopaedia. You are not doing that. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you had explained at any point why you want such absurd trivia in the article, you might have been considered to be acting in good faith. You have not done so. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will take you to 3RRN now, since you are edit-warring against several users and can not provide any arguments except for reverting. Hopefully you will get blocked.-Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully you will, for your bizarre efforts to include absurd text in articles, and your repeated refusal to answer simple questions. You are not acting in good faith. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested moves of all stations of the Beijing Subway

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rename all listed here. Tiananmen West Station was also proposed in comments, but no notice was place at that article or on the talkpage so will have to be considered separately. Timrollpickering 09:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Xizhimen Station → Xizhimen station
• Xuanwumen Station (Beijing) → Xuanwumen station (Beijing Subway)
• Terminal 2 station (Beijing) → Terminal 2 station (Beijing Subway)
• Shuanghe Subway Station → Shuanghe station (Beijing Subway)
• Guanzhuang Station (Line 15) → Guanzhuang station (line 15)

– Per this requested move of the Nanjing Metro stations from using uppercase in the word "station" to lowercase, as well as this RFC green-lighting the change to lowercase. As for Case 3 (a station at the Beijing Capital Airport), where the "s" in "station" is already lowercase, there is an implicit need (from the requested move of the Xi'an Metro stations) for consistency in disambiguation by using the name of the system, not only that of the city (see Xuanwumen station (Nanjing Metro) and Vienna station (Washington Metro)). As for the case when a Subway station serves a railway station (like Beijing South railway station), the Beijing Subway station is 'merged' integrated into the articles on the China Railways stations (tl;dr Hongqiao Railway Station station). I won't bother listing all the stations in the system; this is the system with the 4th-most number of unique stations, and besides, they are all at Template:Beijing Subway Station. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support renaming all articles of Beijing Subway stations as described above. Jc86035 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• and also, move Tiananmen West Station to Tian'anmen West station. CaradhrasAiguo, would you support doing this as well? Jc86035 (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, and same with the eastern counterpart per WP:PINYIN. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  @CaradhrasAiguo: I'm not entirely sure about this, actually. There's a failed RM at Talk:Tiananmen, but there is probably no common name for the station in English (the naming conventions guidelines don't really help). In any case the two should be consistent. Jc86035 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  I also lean towards the apostrophe (?) being used, but don't strongly care either way. However, I was flummoxed (and embarrassed, really) to see someone actually cite Xi'an as a case of WP:OtherStuffExists. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• support these and any others with similar miscapitalisation among Beijing stations. Evidence of spelling in English seems sparse but nothing I’ve seen suggests 'Station' is part of the names - the names seems mostly to stand on their own which implies the opposite.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Adding an example of a different type of non-standard disambiguation. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Second comment: Turning the l in "Line" to lowercase as with Pudian Road station (line 4) and Pudian Road station (line 6) of the Shanghai Metro. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support all per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unexplained reversion

I recently edited this article making four improvements:

• {{use mdy dates}} template added (See linked template)
• align table cells with HTML5-compliant markup (See Wikipedia:HTML 5)
• ins space before left parenthesis: September 20, 1984(Line 2) ... September 28, 2009(Line 4) ... September 28, 2002(Line 13) → September 20, 1984 (Line 2) ... September 28, 2009 (Line 4) ... September 28, 2002 (Line 13)
• dashes: Exits A-F → Exits A–F: (See MOS:ENTO)

Each of these changes is by the book, but Eti15TrSf reverted my edit without explanation. If this user has a problem with my edit, they can explain it here. Note that even if Eti15TrSf had a legitimate dispute over three of my four changes, they should should have retained the one change not in dispute, rather than revert the whole thing.

Note: Eti15TrSf has reverted other edits I have made to articles about stations of Line 13 (Beijing Subway), and those reversions have also been without explanation, or with spurious one-liners that did not withstand scrutiny. These and similar issues were hashed out at Talk:Wudaokou station. Eti15TrSf deleted the entire discussion there with edit summary "this is a dumb discussion" and I restored the discussion with edit summary "Undid revision 968833457 by Eti15TrSf (talk) per WP:TPO, which says, '[I]t is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards.... The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.'" During the discussion at Talk:Wudaokou station, I avoided making further edits to articles relating to Beijing Subway, to give Eti15TrSf the opportunity to support their position. In a spirit of maximum comity, I will once again give Eti15TrSf the opportunity to support their position before I make further edits to articles relating to Beijing Subway. —06:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. When I posted the above comment, I didn't realize that Eti15TrSf had also reverted my similar edits to Zhichunlu station, Wudaokou station, Shangdi station, and Qinghe railway station. (I did know that they had reverted my similar edits to Dazhongsi station.) So far, Eti15TrSf has not reverted my similar edits to Xi'erqi station, Longze station, Huilongguan station, Huoying station, and Lishuiqiao station. In a spirit of maximum comity, I strongly urge Eti15TrSf to leave my edits to those five articles unreverted until the issues are resolved here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. Despite my urging, Eti15TrSf went ahead and reverted Longze station at 07:01, Huilongguan station at 07:02, Huoying station at 07:02, and Lishuiqiao station at 07:06, 27 July 2020. Way to show respect for comity. I will continue to avoid editing articles relating to Beijing Subway for a brief period to give this user a chance to explain. But Eti15TrSf should be aware that I just don't like it is not an argument to use in talk page discussions. At Talk:Wudaokou station I laid out the requirement for markup to be HTML5-compliant. I am waiting for any valid contravening argument. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)