Talk:Line 1 (Beijing Subway)/Archive 1

History
Shouldn't there be like a history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesisbozo (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Line 1, Beijing Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081024204230/http://www.bjsubway.com:80/chinese_ver/cczn/TimeTableDetails.asp?TimeID=10 to http://www.bjsubway.com/chinese_ver/cczn/TimeTableDetails.asp?TimeID=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Line 1, Beijing Subway. 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/20120502232735/http://bjsubway.com/node/2636 to http://www.bjsubway.com/node/2636
 * Added archive https://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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line 1, Beijing Subway. 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 tag to http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2012-0429/165124349033.shtml
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130410182501/http://www.dzwww.com/rollnews/news/201007/t20100704_6274883.htm to http://www.dzwww.com/rollnews/news/201007/t20100704_6274883.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2017

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, except with lowercase "l" in closing instances of "line". bd2412 T 17:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Per this RfC, which resulted in consensus to standardize titles of articles for rapid transit lines, and WP:NCDAB (notifying the other participants in the RfC). Current titles are disambiguated incorrectly because "Beijing Subway" is not a place and cannot use comma disambiguation, and some titles do not need disambiguation; for consistency with other transit systems in mainland China "Beijing" should not be used as the disambiguator since some lines such as Shanghai Metro’s Line 11 extend or will extend outside city limits. From a cursory search at least $3/4$ of news sources (as curated by Google and excluding blogs) use the capitalized form of "Line" for each of the Changping, Daxing, Fangshan and Pinggu lines, so they should probably retain capitalized "Line".
 * Line 1, Beijing Subway → Line 1 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 2, Beijing Subway → Line 2 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 3, Beijing Subway → Line 3 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 4, Beijing Subway → Line 4 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 5, Beijing Subway → Line 5 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 6, Beijing Subway → Line 6 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 7, Beijing Subway → Line 7 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 8, Beijing Subway → Line 8 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 9, Beijing Subway → Line 9 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 10, Beijing Subway → Line 10 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 11, Beijing Subway → Line 11 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 12, Beijing Subway → Line 12 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 13, Beijing Subway → Line 13 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 14, Beijing Subway → Line 14 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 15, Beijing Subway → Line 15 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 16, Beijing Subway → Line 16 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 17, Beijing Subway → Line 17 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 18, Beijing Subway → Line 18 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 19, Beijing Subway → Line 19 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 20, Beijing Subway → Line 20 (Beijing Subway)
 * Line 28, Beijing Subway → Line 28 (Beijing Subway)
 * Airport Express, Beijing Subway → Airport Express (Beijing Subway)
 * Batong Line, Beijing Subway → Batong Line
 * Changping Line, Beijing Subway → Changping Line
 * Daxing Line, Beijing Subway → Daxing Line
 * Fangshan Line, Beijing Subway → Fangshan Line
 * New Airport Line, Beijing Subway → New Airport Line
 * Pinggu Line, Beijing Subway → Pinggu Line
 * Xijiao Line, Beijing Subway → Xijiao Line
 * Yanfang Line, Beijing Subway → Yanfang Line
 * Yizhuang Line, Beijing Subway → Yizhuang Line
 * S1 Line, Beijing Subway → S1 Line (Beijing Subway)

If this RM succeeds then the other 150 articles for rapid transit lines in mainland China should also be similarly renamed, and Rail-interchange and the various succession templates (as well as any other templates) should be updated to link to the correct article titles. Jc86035 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Use lower-case line in "Pinggu line", etc.; I support otherwise. Nom is correct that there's a lot of unnecessary and inconsistent disambiguation going on here.  However, it's lower-case "line" per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with all the other transit article and all the previous RMs.  A 3/4 rate of capitalization in  in one place is meaningless; see recent other RM of this sort for a detailed analysis. These publications do not do this consistently even in the same publication in many cases, and over-capitalize all sorts of things; English is not the native language there, and the English used is quirky.  WP doesn't drop its own manual of style to do weird stuff to match colloquial regional usage.  Nor do we mimic journalism-specific usage anyway (see WP:NOT); the over-capitalizing habits of news writing are not found in mainstream style guides like Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules (which is why MOS:CAPS also defaults to lowercase unless we're  a capital letter belongs there in formal writing). We only use a capital letter when RS do so with virtually uniform consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with SMcCandlish's mod – I checked sources on some of the "Xxx line" and verified that they are not consistently capped in sources, so not to be interpreted as proper names per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment should "Airport Express" be lowercase as well, or does it retain "E"? Jc86035 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. Most sources do cap that, but not all; see Jane's. I could go either way on that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a proper-name case to me. It's "nouning" of an evocative adjective. I.e., in longer form it would be "Airport E xpress l ine".  Head-scratching style questions are usually easier to figure out if you substitute meaning-similar but less-common words.  If it were called the "Airport R ocket l ine" we'd spell it that way. Same goes for descriptive "line" alternatives. If it were the "Airport E xpress t ramway" or "Airport E xpress l ight r ail" that's also how we'd treat it, not "Airport Express T ramway", etc.  See "Extended Discussion", below, for some meta-analysis about these sorts of names as a class, with comparison to previous cases (plus, why our "only capitalize if virtually all RS do it" approach saves us from a lot of tedious case-by-case research and analysis).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, with lowercase line, but uppercase Express in Airport Express. I have no problems with this given the reasoning above and consensus built in the RfC in WP:TRAINS. Also agree it should be implemented for other China metro systems which share the same naming style currently. I would like to see some more input or at least, acknowledgment from editors who primarily edit and maintain these articles so they are aware of the change.  Heights (Want to talk?) 05:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of editors seem to regularly maintain these articles and most page moves have been by just a few editors, AFAIK, though  (without RM) 33 other articles for numbered rapid transit lines in China after I started this RM. Jc86035 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with 's tweak.--Aervanath (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose with lower case "line". Line X or Xyz Line is the official name of these subway lines. See . # ForeverLove — FRDian 你一定要好好的 13:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style/Capital letters. People writing in specific topic areas apparently tend to over-capitalize a lot so we ignore that since our audience is everyone. For example, in project documents MTRC/Beijing MTRC might capitalize "Tunnel Boring Machine" most of the time but we don't since it's not necessary to do so. I am ambivalent about this though I don't think it matters much. Jc86035 (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion
This is all very similar to the naming of articles on domestic animal breeds, which we've been over in a 3-year series of RMs and years of prior discussions. It's Anatolian Black c attle (just called the Anatolian Black among breeders) and American Landrace p ig; the breed name is (conventionally but not entirely universally – another debate for another time, if we want a bunch of drama) treated as a proper name, but the descriptive species name tacked on at the end is not. There are exceptions in both breed and transit cases, where the word at the end is an integral part of the name. This happens the name isn't descriptive, and without the final word it makes no sense because it is (in the real world) unacceptably ambiguous without it; thus, e.g., the Norwegian Forest C at, American Quarter H orse, and Olympic S tation. (the NFC isn't a woodland, the AQH isn't a coin, and OS isn't the Olympics or at Mount Olympus). In all of these special proper-name cases the name is also evocative/metaphoric/honorific not descriptive: NFCs are not actually from a forest and have nothing to do with the woods; AQHs are not part-horse-part-something-else nor tiny nor cut into pieces; and Olympic Sta. doesn't have any intrinsic connection at all to the Olympics or to a street named Olympic or to anything else of which it could be descriptive or to which it is geographically connected named "Olympic", but is an honorary name in reference to a specific person [though weirdly vague about it]. By contrast, New Airport l ine and the Airport Express [ l ine] really do just describe lines going to airports. Compare also Olympic Park r ailway l ine, a line actually going to that park. See also Van Ness s tation (the station at Van Ness Ave.) versus Grand Central S tation (now Grand Central T erminal), another evocative/metaphoric name, like Pacific O cean and Rocky M ountains. And so on. English is at an annoying transitional phase right now, which makes this stuff complicated. A century ago, all of these things would have been capitalized (people actually used to even capitalize occupations, as in "the P ainter Vincent Van Gogh", season names, and many other things), and a century before that it was common to capitalize all nouns, German-style. In another 100 years, we'll probably lower-case everything under discussion here and much more besides, given the long trend away from capitals. This is one of the reasons we have a "just lowercase it unless the sources consistently capitalize it" rule; it prevents us having to do this sort of proper-versus-descriptive analysis every single time (which often requires actual research about why something has the name it does). It's time better spent on real content instead of style trivia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:43, 30 December 2017 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Beijing Subway logo.svg