Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 10

Split Seoul Metropolitan Subway,
Split Seoul Metropolitan Subway, it was modified according to the current data Seoul Seoul split or else I think, to let Shanghai Maglev Metro Plus, with a length of 567 magnetic levitation.

[http://www.shmetro.com/node49/201312/con113574.htm 至此，上海地铁全网运营线路总长首超500公里增至567公里（538公里+磁浮29公里）、车站共计331座（329座+磁浮2座）. ] --Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seoul Metropolitan Subway changed 981.5 km may also be considered a better discussion of this split, after all this is the metro entry.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the tally only includes metro lines in the Seoul subway system, so there is no need for any split. Massyparcer (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to split based on what we know about the Seoul Metro right now but will soon need to have a system length audit soon.Terramorphous (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of what you present based on the Korean Wiki pages below, I'm now starting to think that a split between Seoul Subway/Seoul Metropolitan Railway is, in fact, warranted. --IJBall (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing my opinion about Seoul Metropolitan Subway, as I was requested to join the conversation. From my point of view - as a student who use the system in daily basis - any line that is under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare System should be part of Seoul Metropolitan Subway. The lines that fall into this criteria are : Lines 1~9, Incheon Line 1, Bundang Line, Suin Line (Suin Line is expected to join Bundang Line in future, and is undergoing construction), DX Line (so-called Shinbundang Line), A'REX Normal Train (Seoul-Incheon International Airport Non-stop trains are not under fare system, also Yeongjong Area - from Unseo station to Incheon Airport station doesn't share the fare system), Jungang Line, Gyeongchun Line excluding ITX (ITX don't share the fare system), and Gyeongui Line.

I think this way of deciding is very reasonable, as systems under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare are maintained mainly as commuter use (this is why A'REX Geomam - Seoul Station Normal trains are under this system - they are used as commuter trains by Incheon people), and people can actually buy commuting pass (the 30-day commuting pass) to use in those systems.

Under this criterion, U Line (Uijeongbu LRT) and Everline (Yongin LRT) doesn't satisfy this. It is true that they are used as commuting use, but as they don't allow commuting passes, etc, we can't view them as the part of the whole system. U Line should be considered as Metro system of Uijeongbu City, and Everline as system of Yongin City.

If we don't make this criterion as this now, the 'Seoul Metro question' would come again when Ui LRT (우이경전철) which is built. Ui LRT is also part of Seoul Unity Fare, and also goes only through Seoul area.

And, about Incheon Airport KTX issue, if we say that A'REX don't become part of Seoul Metro system anymore because they have normal bullet trains operated at the line, we need to also separate part of Line 1. Line 1's Gyeongbu Section has their Express Trains (Cheonan Express, Yongsan Express, and Seoul (Aboveground) Express) and Gwangmyeong Shuttle trains running on same tracks as KTX, Saemaeul, and so on.

It isn't an easy issue, I think we need to discuss this issue by taking plenty of time. MinSik CHO (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Line 1 has already been separated no need to worry.Terramorphous (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've went through the past talks, and I agree that we shouldn't count the lines that metro trains serves as auxillary option to normal train services. Then, that leaves these lines -


 * Line 1 (Guro - Incheon, Guro - Cheongnyangri, Guro - Byeongjeom - Seodongtan), Line 2 ~ 9, Bundang Line, Shinbundang Line (DX Line), A'REX (Geomam - Seoul Aboveground), GyeongUi (Gongdeok - DMC), Suin [Someone should recheck as I'm tentatively checking their status]


 * Separating U Line and Everline should be done, and for lines that have same path with normal train services but are run in different tracks, we should recognize them as part of system.


 * Then, the thing that I'd like to question here is: should we include GYEONGBU EXPRESS Trains? Gyeongin Express Trains have their own tracks, so it isn't a problem - we should include them. On the other hand, for Gyeongbu Express trains, they are operated in tracks of normal trains. Considering the fact that Gyeongbu Express trains (Cheonan Express, Yongsan Express and Seoul Aboveground Express) are direct substitutes of normal trains, it is indefinite how we should treat these under this criterion.


 * I've just started to look over the past talks, so if there's somethings that contradict to past debate, feel free to tell me. MinSik CHO (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree that U Line, and it would seem Everline, should be included as separate entries. I still think thought should be given to inclusion of the other lines as two entries: Seoul Subway, and Seoul Metropolitan Railway, lines. --IJBall (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before the RER and Tokyo has a very similar setup and is not counted. Every single metro train sould only operate on their own tracks even expresses (A and B Rapids) to count.Terramorphous (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not used to RER / Tokyo's system, but as far as I know, passengers choose which train (presumably from different operators) to take, as usually multiple trains compete in time, convenience, etc. I've heard in Tokyo Airports - Haneda and Narita, there are 2-3 services with different duration time and price. Obviously, the services are not perfect substitutes. However, for Seoul system, there are multiple operators in same track (ex. Seoul Metro and KORAIL), but passengers don't distinguish them, as they are perfect substitutes. No one waits in the platform, and says "Oh, I don't like to ride KORAIL rolling stocks, so I should wait until Seoul Metro rolling stocks to come" - as they are identical.
 * There seems to be quite differences and similarities in the system. I don't think it would be an easy debate, but yeah, we should scrutinize the systems in more depth, and apply the best criterion. As I left comment on the last topic (criteria one), if we can make abrupt changes, it would be nice if we just divide the train systems in more definite category, and just let people know about the ambiguity when they search by 'List of Metro Systems' MinSik CHO (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll pop in here but won't be watching super closely for a heated debate as I haven't the time. I normally go off of the large printed signs inside the subway stations as to what is part of the metro system and what is not. The system is designed to be one massive system. Lines 1-9, AREX (no free transfer but plenty of transfers exist), Jungang, Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Bundang, Suin, Sinbundang, Incheon 1 all allow free transfers. I know U Line doesn't give free transfers as there were budgetary issues and a sticker has been placed on some (but not all) of the signs to remove it from official maps but the stations are designed for transfers there. In the future I believe Uijeongbu City will follow through with original agreements and subsidise the line allowing a full and complete integration aka free transfers. The EverLine is included on maps provided by the subway stations themselves so I assume it has a free transfer and I have no reason to think it is not part of the system in Seoul. All of these lines are connected to each other. All of these lines are meant to be one large system. And all of these lines (with occasional exception to U Line as it appears on some maps but not on others) are part of the same mass transit/metro/tube/subway/whatever-term-you-want-to-use-system. These are all one system and should be acknowledged as such. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 12:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but where to draw the line. I know its a large system and its so mixed a line is hard to draw. If we start adding stuff to the count it really starts looking like Original Research and not to mention you get some pretty ridiculous numbers. We are going to have to cut somewhere as the system is way too ambiguous. I agree we have to add appropriate lines that are rapid transit. However I think we should be strict on the criteria given how we are making an exception and how ambiguous the network is. Seoul has explosive growth in length not because of line openings but because we are gradually loosening the criteria of rapid transit for a very blurred system. If we are going to make an exception that is different from outside opinion I expect it to be very strict and defendable. I'd say look at the Korean pages for solutions. They clearly know and understand the system better than we do and managed to make it work under wikipedia's guidelines. Terramorphous (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already said this before about the Korean wiki but they have a separate article on the Seoul Subway purely because these lines are owned by Seoul City. Not because they exist as a separate system. The list is purely informal and is not backed up by any source. If it was a different system, it would have a separate fare structure, yet they have universal fare structure and shared subway cars. Terramorhpous, your claims are consistently based on the Korean wiki, yet you don't seem to understand the Korean wikis' themselves in the first place. You don't understand that they're informal ones with no existence in reality, made-up by Korean wiki users for practical reasons and are largely original research that can't be used in Wikipedia. They managed it get it to work under Wiki guidelines because the Korean wiki is extremely small compared to the English one and is administered by a very small number of people - Any original research usually goes through there. Massyparcer (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You continue to over-simplify - in fact, system ownership is a completely valid way of figuring out what "defines" a system, and would be a totally valid criteria for such a definition. It's not just about "system maps" and "fare structures". The fact that Korean Wiki has done that split, and the fact that it's based on Seoul City owning just the Seoul Subway portion, makes the case for a split along those exact lines stronger, not weaker, in my mind. --IJBall (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And you continue to make claims out of nowhere - There is no source that says ownership defines a system. Your claim is simply original research without any source. Systems maps are official and fare structures are explicitly listed at http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm that show that the Seoul Subway with a universal fare structure is a single metro system. Massyparcer (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:original research - I don't think you understand what it means with how you are throwing the term around. Also, where in the reference you cite there does it back up what you just claimed?... --IJBall (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already reviewed WP:original research and know what I'm talking about when I say something is clearly original research, thanks. The reference clearly says that: Commuter rails "using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by: Since all subway lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway use a single fare system with no multi-trip tickets nor specific station to station fares, they are not a commuter rail but a single metro system because they meet all the requirement of a heavy rail (with exceptions like AREX from April 2014 that we have discussed above): "Heavy Rail (HR) A transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by: Massyparcer (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Multi-trip tickets
 * Specific station to station fares"
 * High speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails
 * Separate rights-of-way (ROW) from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded
 * Sophisticated signaling, and
 * High platform loading."
 * Attaching latest Seoul Metropolitan Subway Network Map printed by SMRT (manages Lines 5-8) and distributed at Godeok Station (according to the source) http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=train&no=443140 / They consider these lines (Lines 1-9, GyeongUi, Bundang, DX-Shinbundang, A'REX, GyeongChun, Jungang, Suin, Incheon) as part of the system, and these lines (U Line, Everline) as not included in the network. Could be handy latest reference. :) MinSik CHO (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cho that Line 1 Guro-Cheonan, Guro-Incheon, Guro-Dongducheon, Byeongjeom-Seodongtan and Incheon Line 1 must be included because they all run grade separated with their own right of way. Commuter rail services with a separate fare structure only begin at Dongducheon and Cheonan. Geumcheon-gu Office to Gwangmyeong wil be excluded since it shared tracks with KTX. Gyeongui Line has a small shared section between Hwajeon and DMC to allow KTX trains go to their depot. Other than that section, it will be fine to include the rest since it fits all the definition of current official sources. Gyeongui Line track diagram: http://blog.naver.com/ianhan/120204204879 Based on the official definitions of heavy rail and commuter rail as defined by American Public Transportation Association, National Transit Database, International Association of Public Transport and the Transportation Research Board and applying every criteria they mention strictly, only the following sections in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway will be included:

Massyparcer (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Line 1 Dongducheon-Cheonan, Guro-Incheon, Byeongjeom-Seodongtan
 * Line 2-9
 * Bundang/Sinbundang/Suin/U Line/Everline/Incheon Line 1
 * AREX DMC-Seoul Station
 * Gyeongui Line Gongdeok-Susaek, Hwajeon-Munsan
 * I agree with Massyparcer's idea. To make it clear,
 * * Line 1 Normal Train Services [Dongducheon-Cheonan, Guro-Incheon, Byeongjeom-Seodongtan] and Express Train Services [Cheongnyangri-Guro-Dong Incheon]
 * * Line 2~9, including KORAIL-owned Ilsan, Gwacheon, Ansan sections
 * * Bundang/Shinbundang/Suin/Incheon line
 * * U/Everline
 * * AREX Digital Media City - Seoul Aboveground
 * * Gyeongui Line Gongdeok-Susaek, Hwajeon-Munsan
 * When Yongsan Section of Gyeongui line is constructed (it's underground section), we can extend the range to Yongsan-Susaek + Hwajeon-Munsan. Under this decision, we can assume that metro services that are being constructed: Ui-Sinseol line, Incheon 2, Sinlim line as part of metro system, right?
 * If consensus is met with this compromise, we could reflect it on the list. And, I've requested KORAIL for what they think about the line that distinguishes Seoul Metropolitan System. If I get some useful information, I'll post it here. MinSik CHO (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Once the extension to Yongsan on Gyeongui Line is completed at the end of 2014, that part will be included too. Ui Line and Incheon Line 2 and Sinlim will all be included in the future once they open since they all meet the official definitions above. I have made this very clear on the Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article: While technical definitions of a subway, metro or rapid transit vary from country to country, applying the definitions from the International Association of Public Transport, American Public Transportation Association, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Transport Research Laboratory, the following sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway fully meet the criterias set in the sources: The total length of the metro sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway total out at 720 km with 442 stations (with transfer stations counted as one). Massyparcer (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seoul Subway Line 1 (174 km / 91 stations): Dongducheon-Cheonan, Guro-Incheon and Byeongjeom-Seodongtan
 * Seoul Subway Lines 2-9 (378.3 km / 324 stations)
 * Bundang, Sinbundang and Suin Lines and Incheon Subway Line 1 (112.7 km / 80 stations)
 * AREX (9.5 km / 4 stations): Digital Media City-Seoul Station
 * Gyeongui Line (45.5 km / 20 stations): Digital Media City-Gongdeok, Susaek-Munsan
 * No outside source agrees with this inflated system length figure for this system. So, no. --IJBall (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous official and reliable sources below agree with us, so I don't see where you're going with your claim that "no outside source agrees". Where is your source showing an outside source disagreeing with us? I don't see how you can get any more accurate and reliable on defining a metro system other than the following sources: Explain to me how it is inflated. Simply saying that it is inflated and saying nothing to back up your claim suggests ignorance. Show me any other reliable source other than the above on defining a metro criteria. If you continue to ignore the official sources above, we need an admin to this article to deal with this kind of ignorance. Massyparcer (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * International Association of Public Transport
 * American Public Transportation Association
 * National Transit Database
 * Transportation Research Board
 * You keep digging your own grave here, so I am going to say this one final time - no external source or reference identifies Seoul as the longest metro system in the world, as your inflated system length count clearly does. This violates Wikipedia policy on WP:Original research, as Wikipedia has to follow what the outside world does, and all outside sources indicate that Shanghai has the longest system in the world currently. If you would just agree to the compromise to split Seoul's entry in this table, nearly all the lines you want listed in the table will be included, they just won't be bundled into this "mega-entry" but would be split into 3 or more entries in the table.
 * As for this discussion, I am done - you have not convinced me, and I doubt you have convinced many (if any) others. --IJBall (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're continuing to look at this issue in the wrong direction. Nobody here is interested in identifying Seoul as the longest metro system in the world, including me. I'm not digging for anything here because what I'm interested is in applying fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rules from reliable sources as shown by WP:Original research that directly back up any criteria we set out here. There is no need for any external source or reference to say Seoul is the longest metro system in the world because this has never been the point of this discussion in the first place. I will remind you what this discussion is about, because you're clearly not getting it - It is about what lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway fully meet the criteria set out in the above official and reliable sources. This is not my count but the counts as set out by every single official source defining a metro we can possibly account for and hence accusing me of violating WP:Original research is nonsense. By outside sources, we're clearly talking about the English media that know no better than the International Association of Public Transport or the American Public Transportation Association. Think about which source is more reliable and which one we should follow. There's no such thing as a compromise - As discussed before, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway has only existed in one form and splitting is going against the facts without a source and is clearly violating WP:Original research. 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 some English media reports. Massyparcer (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IJBall, if your main concern is 'longest metro system' thing, we can always say that 'There are many ways to define metro system, and in Wikipedia following criteria is used to evaluate the length of metro systems. ~ Other sources calculate their length using these criteria ~ and say Shanghai or any metro system as longest metro system. We should decide a concrete criteria to define metro system, not adjust the definition of it to match with external sources. Yes, it is important that Wikipedia should match with external sources, but it doesn't mean that we need to adjust criteria in consensus, only to agree with mere sources that are just news articles that would be sole judgement of closed groups. MinSik CHO (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Cho's idea is a very reasonable one indeed. Clearly there are many different ways to define a metro and definitions vary from country to country. My main concern is that people have been constantly manipulating criteria and inventing new ones to fit their own need on this article for way too long, when we should only follow the reliable criteria as set out in the official sources. We need one concrete set of official criteria that are directly backed up by reliable sources as per WP:Original research and have the main list solely based on this. We can always say that a limited group of English or Chinese media look at this differently - the Shanghai Metro being the longest when viewed from those groups, who may use a different, unofficial criteria or have neglected other subway systems. The problem with media reports is that they're usually created by news companies interested in making headlines to make a profit and often manipulate data to backup their claims. Many news reports do not turn out to be the truth, which can contain significant bias and influence from 3rd parties. Ultimately, we need a concrete criteria that looks at this in neutral way as per WP:Neutral point of view and the only way I can think of doing so is by following the criteria set out in the official sources. They're the ones who create these terms, research metros and are the governing bodies. Massyparcer (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To MinSik CHO: it looks to me like Seoul is a metro "network" made up of more than one "system" (with different owners). I think a reasonable compromise is to split Seoul into "Seoul Subway", "Seoul Metropolitan Railway" and the "U Line" (which has to be on its own, as it is not directly physically linked to the others) as separate entries, and then include a 'Note' to the Subway and Metropolitan Railway entries on what the system characteristics would be if you "bundled them together as one". That seems like a fair solution, though this doesn't directly deal with all of Terramorphous' original concerns. --IJBall (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, network and system is the same thing. I have continued to warn you against inventing things out of the air. It's clearly original research to invent systems that do not exist as you claim. U Line is physically connected to Seoul Subway Line 1 at Hoeryong Station, so I don't see where you're going with this. Where are your sources to all these non-existent "systems"? If you have even bothered to read what Cho wrote, he pointed out multiple times that there is only one Seoul Metropolitan Subway in existence and it has been that way for a very long time until you and Terramorhpous came along and suddenly invent three non-existent systems out of the air. Massyparcer (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IJBall, for U Line, I think it is a bit ambiguous whether to endorse it as part of system or not, as it isn't part of Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare System. Incheon Metro (who does operates U line) is considering to adopt the unity fare system soon, so I think for U line, we could add it to the system when the decision as unity fare system is finally decided. However, for other parts, I have to disagree that we shouldn't separate two. I myself is a student who takes Seoul Metro every morning & afternoon, and no one views the system as separate systems. I strongly believe that Wikipedia should reflect how the system is operated in local area. If an encyclopedia refuses to reflect local situation without concrete source, it should be a misleading document. I asked few of my friends who use the system daily, and their answer was consistent that all parts (including even Cheonan-Sinchang which is a consensus to exclude from system) should be considered as one system. They said that they haven't thought the system as several part of system. I can understand that this kind of operation system is very unique, so it would be hard for foreigners to understand the system. (I'd really love to guide you through the system if you visit Seoul one time, but we should leave that for now.) I think if we separate the system, many foreigners would think that Seoul system is somewhat similar to that of Germany's U-bahn and S-bahn. (I've used Frankfurt's system last year) Unlike U/S-bahn, sections in Line 1&3&4 are connected very seemlessly and no one really realizes that the parts are divided for listing purposes.
 * Also, the names that we use officially - Janghang section, Gwacheon section, Ansan section, Ilsan section - are not even known by Korean locals, excluding very small number of people who are interested in subway system plus KORAIL & SMRT & SMetro personnels. The rolling stocks just look identical (as they are all based on Korean Standard Metro Rolling Stock), and the way fares are calculated is also completely identical.
 * And the owners issue, Seoul differentiated operators to Seoul Metro and SMRT just because it was easier to lend money from the banks that were needed for constructions. Metro9 Operation Corp. was established as Seoul constructed the system under MRG contact (which was originally planned to be operated by SMRT or SMetro, but IMF recommended to change the plan). In lines 1&3&4, two operators (KORAIL and SMetro) adjust their plans so that the service is as seamless as possible. If KORAIL rolling stocks were only trains that were being operated in KORAIL sections, it would be more logical to follow what you've said. However, a lot of Seoul Metro rolling stocks go to Oido, Daehwa to get their passengers. (Oh. I even took one SMetro train and one KORAIL train today at line 4) There is no systematic issue for divided ownership of Seoul Metro System. Again, if you are concerned about U line on this matter, I'm completely open to this issue. I don't have some knowledge about LRTs (I haven't even took LRT for my lifetime), so I think discussion by people with more expertise, with instances all over the world, should be done to solve this issue.
 * Legally speaking, Korean law DOES NOT distinguish the system into several parts, and just mentions it as 'urban rail system'. The Urban Railway Act says in its 3rd article that
 * * 1. The term "Urban Railway" refers to track transportation facilities and modes, including railway, monorail, streetcar, linear induction motor and magnetic levitation train which are constructed and operated in urban transportation areas to decongest traffic.
 * So, in Korea, lines divided into sections are solely for metro personnel to identify the parts easily. As a matter of system, it is indeed, one system. MinSik CHO (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, refocusing on some points you made above - for right now, would you agree that both U Line and EverLine should be separated out in to their own entries in the table? From your discussion above, it seems like they should, and that would be an easy thing to do in the short-term... --IJBall (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you haven't read a thing what Cho said and interested only in cutting the Seoul Subway figure as much as possible for no reason or reliable sources. You seem to deliberately avoid the point of this discussion. My concern is that your short reply is showing no consideration for what Cho said regarding Seoul's subway system, only revealing blatant ignorance and interest in cutting Seoul Subway's figure for no reason, which is not constructive at all and is pointing to a violation of WP:Neutral point of view, which I suggest you read first. I would also suggest you study about Korean subways first before you even dig into this issue because you have admitted yourself you don't know much about Asian subways. If you don't know about Korean subways, then leave it to people who know it far better than you and have direct experience and knowledge with this issue. I don't see how somebody who has never been to Seoul or even has any remote knowledge of it suddenly turns up and is claiming that three imagery systems exist out of nowhere and is cutting random chunks at his will. Everline has a physical transfer tunnel installed to Bundang Line's Giheung Station which opened on January 9th, 2014 and is getting metropolitan unity fare applied very soon (within a couple of weeks), so no. Source: http://www.suwon.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=89030 and http://www.kgnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=368502 Talks on U Line joining metropolitan unity fare is also starting as early as next week: http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=001&aid=0006702235 The count above already excludes AREX DMC-Incheon International Airport, which isn't going to happen until April 2014, with new sources pointing to a July 2014 timeframe. I don't think there is much point in removing or adding lines that already have fixed schedules since it will only confuse people and mess up the count again. Massyparcer (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IJBall, to make my point clear, I think that U line and Everline must be included to the Seoul Metro system when they become part of Seoul Unity Fare System - which is expected to be very imminent. Both U line and Everline has sufficient conditions to be recognized as part of metro systems. If people are concerned about un-transferable system - just like Yeongjongdo Area of A'REX, it would be wise to add them later when each of them become part of unity fare system just as a compromise. Without any other points, can I assume that you agree on other points rather than U line & Everline? Other parts of the system has nothing debatable, in my opinion. The only part that has some points to talk about, from my point of view, is U line and Everline. MinSik CHO (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Other than the U Line which I think will take a little longer than Everline to join the unity fare, we should include the rest as stated before. Everline was already included in the previous consensus and we have to include it anyway in a few weeks or even days so I suggest to add that now, and remove AREX DMC-Incheon International Airport in advance as a compromise. Massyparcer (talk) Massyparcer (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, I'm not signing off on the idea that a "single fare" system is justification enough to "bundle" everything together, at least not without hearing how other editors feel on the issue. On the specific issue of the U Line, my #1 problem is that it is not directly connected to the rest of the rapid transit portion of Seoul's Metro railway - that means to me, even if it's under the same fare system, it's a separate line. So, it definitely sounds like U Line should be its own entry right now, regardless. --IJBall (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IJBall, you need to read what others have written before you start making replies. Simply disagreeing without a valid reason is not constructive. Cho hasn't just talked about the metropolitan unity fare but also mentioned all the technical and legal reasons and even went onto historical reasons to fully prove why only one subway system has existed in Seoul for a very long time. My advice to you is simple - Prove your claims of "bundling" with sources and facts if you want to disagree, because disagreeing for no reason is not convincing at all. As for U Line, you clearly haven't read what Cho said about it. We will not make a separate entry for it because it is not a different system but a part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway that will be excluded for now and added later to the count once the unity fare is officially applied. Yes, it is connected to Seoul Subway Line 1's Hoeryong Station, which is a rapid transit portion of Seoul's subway system - You seem to rely on Terramorphous's misleading and unsourced claim that it isn't a rapid transit, which is false because that section is a fully grade-separated part where only subway cars operate at headways of 6 minutes at RH and 10 min during daytime. Source: Click on Hoeryong Station to view timetable That doesn't make it any different from the New York City subway. If you're saying that section isn't a rapid transit, then we have to remove NYC subway since that wouldn't be a rapid transit. Sounds like nonsense, right? But this is exactly what you are claiming here. As Cho already said, this is a nonsense discussion to start with, so I suggest you go and study Seoul's subway first before making completely unproven and unsourced claims that don't show even basic knowledge of the Seoul subway. Massyparcer (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Applied the consensus to the article as per WP:CONSENSUS in light of all the internationally agreed definitions of a metro by official and reliable sources with U Line excluded until it joins metropolitan unity fare and AREX DMC-Incheon Airport excluded in advance as a compromise. Massyparcer (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going stop by to note here my vehement opposition to the recent deletion of the Incheon Subway and it's bundling into Seoul - it is owned by Incheon, not Seoul, and should not be bundled in that way. --IJBall (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, yes agree, there is no reason to bundle those two together. They are different cities! Oppose merger of two. Mattximus (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have a consensus on this but I will explain it again. Just like BART serving the San Francisco Bay Area, which is shared between the cities of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mate, you need to understand that there are 3 different administrative regions involved in the Seoul Capital Area, which is the metropolitan area of Seoul - Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi-do. It's not bundled into Seoul as IJBall continues to claim - This is a metropolitan subway for the Seoul Metropolitan Area shared by the 3 administrative regions using a single metropolitan unity fare, as Cho said. For some reason, people think it is a subway of Seoul, which is not true as we have seen from the discussion above. Sections of Seoul Subway Line 7 is owned by Incheon and have been in this list for a very long time and the point is there is not a single reliable source that says ownership equates to a rapid transit system as IJBall claims. This is against WP:Original research. I understand that it is a different system unlike in North America where a city usually owns a subway, but in South Korea, the three administrative regions have grown so close to each other that they share a single, unified subway system with the same fare structure. In other words, you can transfer for free from Seoul Subway Line 7 to Incheon Subway Line 1 and vice versa, with no physical barriers. This system is called Sudogwon Jeoncheol 수도권 전철 in Korean, where Sudogwon means "Seoul Metropolitan Area" and Jeoncheol means subway. Massyparcer (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have a consensus on this, and you repeatedly declaring that one exists doesn't make it so. With the way you throw around terms like "consensus" and "original research", I really question if you understand what they mean, in terms of Wikipedia.
 * Once again, "unified fares" does not a "system" make - there are already multiple examples in this table, most notably Berlin's U-Bahn and S-Bahn, where there is a "unified fare structure" but in which they still have separate entries in this table.
 * On top of that, it is admitted in this entire discussion that U Line (and apparently EverLine) isn't even included in this "unified fare structure", and you went ahead and included those lines anyway!
 * One of the hallmark criteria for systems in this table is "Does it serve a city?" Incheon Subway serves Incheon primarily, not Seoul. We generally do not use "Metropolitan Areas" in this table, only cities.
 * Also, you are now claiming that Seoul's entire Line 1 is "rapid transit", in contravention of previous consensus, and from what I can tell with no justification whatsoever.
 * And, finally, not one external reference gives Seoul's metro system the system length you are quoting for it - you are now claiming Seoul is the longest metro system in the world by far (without reference), when no one else does, and that is actually WP:original research.
 * I would really like to see someone list the various owners of the various components of rapid transit in Seoul, because I will once again advocate that we split Seoul's entry on that basis. --IJBall (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have a very strong consensus here, not just me but also Cho and Rickininasia who have provided full technical and legal evidence that there has been only one system for a very long time until you came along and claim some imagery systems exist out of nowhere. Where are your sources to your misleading claims?
 * We have never said a unified fare structure makes a rapid transit system - This is just one of the many evidence that show it is a single subway system.
 * U Line isn't included in the tally until it joins metropolitan unity fare, so why are you lying here? I have made it very clear above multiple times. This just shows how ignorant you're to this discussion. Clearly, you can't read.
 * We have already said that this subway system serves the Seoul Metropolitan Area - Not just Seoul. BART serving San Francisco Bay Area, Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH), PATCO Speedline and Tyne and Wear Metro are already listed, so we need to remove all of them if we follow your nonsense, completely unsourced claim.
 * Again, clearly you can't read. We haven't included Dongducheon-Soyosan or Cheonan-Sinchang, as Cho already said. This was dropped as a compromise really, despite them fully meeting the criteria set out in the official sources. We have included only parts of Seoul Subway Line 1 that are rapid transit. The previous consensus only took account of Seoul Station~Cheonyangni, when rapid transit terminates at Donducheon to the north, Incheon the west and Cheonan to the south.
 * These are all figures from the official operators that meet all the internationally agreed definition of a metro, so I don't see where your claim is going there. I'm not making any claims - Everything that was discussed above was fully sourced. If we follow your logic of listing them by owners, which is a complete breach of WP:Original research, but let's just imagine if we do that, then the vast majority of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway is owned by the Korea Rail Network Authority. We will have to list this under "Korean Subway", which is ridiculous. Massyparcer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "consensus" is three people, one of whom is you, the other two you apparently brought into this discussion from elsewhere (one of whom only commented once or twice) and the other of whom has been much more equivocal (and willing to actually discuss the issue). There has been very little response from the long-time editors of this page who are far more numerous than just 3 people. So, no, "consensus" has not been reached.
 * Two, how can I tell that you didn't include the U Line when you destroyed the original Seoul 'note' which listed what was included in the "system"?! [Withdraw - I see now that the note was just moved...]
 * Listing by owner isn't "original research" - it's how a number of these systems have been listed from Day One. It is a logical way to define what a "system" is. To paraphrase you, "This is just one of the many [pieces of] evidence that show [what] is a single metro system."
 * Finally, most of us are willing to concede that most of the lines you want qualify as "metros" (though you still haven't justified tossing the original consensus on Seoul Line 1...) - the issue is whether they should all be bundled together. --IJBall (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" which I suggest you read first, you have been the only one in the last couple of days disagreeing with no valid reason and making misleading claims.
 * I sugggest you count them if you're not lazy. The note on the tally clearly gives all the figures. I'm sure you learned how to count at primary school.
 * Which is unfortunately unsourced. Besides that though, as I said before you can't apply the owner logic to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway when its owner is the Korea Rail Network Authority. It's not a city like in North America. It's a rail authority.
 * As Terramorphous has said from the very beginning of this discussion, the previous discussion was full of compromises that are unsourced. I have already dealt with Line 1 above, so I suggest you read that first. Clearly, you haven't followed the discussion.
 * Technically and legally there has been only one system for a very long time - Including that previous consensus you mention. This wasn't an issue until you came along to disagree for no reason with misleading claims and unsourced original research. Massyparcer (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And, again, withdrawing from this discussion, because it's not my responsibility to be "net cop" here (that's not what I signed up for on Wiki). It seems clear to me that Massyparcer is an editor with a point to prove here. But I can't fight him off without some support from the other editors of this page. For one last time, however, I will note that the current system length figure for Seoul is completely unsourced, and "unsourced material can be challenged or removed". I also hope that another editor will take the time to restore Incheon Subway as its own entry in the table, as two of us have expressed support for. That is all... --IJBall (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you're going against all the evidence presented on this talkpage and existing and previous consensus without valid sources or even reasons. You have not been a constructive editor to this issue, let alone be a "net cop" as you claim since you have proven in this talk page that you are yet you're not admitting a single one of of that. I can only conclude that your sole interest seems to be cutting Seoul's tally for no reason, which is substantially violating WP:Neutral point of view. The current length for Seoul is fully sourced from the official operators's websites (Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit's http://www.smrt.co.kr/main/publish/view.jsp?menuID=001007003007, Korail.com and so on) and the South Korean government - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport http://english.molit.go.kr. These figures come directly from the horse's mouth who funded and built this subway system in the first place and meet all the internationally-agreed criteria for a metro that we have on this article and the existing consensus,so making such false claims is complete nonsense, IJ. Regarding Incheon Subway, I have already explained that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway serves the Seoul Metropolitan Area - It is shared between Seoul and Incheon using a single fare structure, just like BART serving the San Francisco Bay Area, which is shared between the cities of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo. Just to make this crystal clear - Legally, Article 3 of the Terms of Passenger Transport by Incheon Transit defines the system as "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" lastly amended on 21st February 2012 ("수도권 도시철도" 인천교통공사 여객운송약관, 2012년 2월 21일 약관 제3호). Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp
 * highly manipulative to suit your own need (such as claiming that a personal opinion is a valid reference)
 * disruptive (continuously violating WP:Original research and WP:Neutral point of view)
 * making misleading claims (inventing new subways that only exist in your imagination that don't have any source to back up)
 * clearly having not even a basic knowledge of Korean subways, yet making unsourced claims about it
 * false accusations to me (lying that I have included U line in the tally despite the truth and consensus)
 * declaring to ignore me (which is not constructive)
 * ignoring/not following the discussion and other editors' consensus

Massyparcer (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no end in this discussion :( As I've mentioned few times, along with Massyparcer have, inclusion of all other parts of the system except U Line and Everline should be a certain thing. It is regulated by local law as a whole system, and is also maintained as one metro system. You may say that Incheon is a big metropolitan city, but as Seoul expanded, Incheon is just one of big satellite cities of Seoul. Having Incheon Metro Line 1 apart, while leaving Line 7 Incheon Section (Onsu - Bupyeong gu Office), Line 1 Gyeongin section (Guro - Incheon) would be a weird-o, and wouldn't reflect the real fact. I see there has been some concerns about lack of sources - partially due to the fact that Seoul system is very different from others. However, from my point of view, local law does the right job. Researches conducted on Seoul Metro system is based on the definition of the local law, and the maintainers perceive them as one system. For U line and Everline, I share a common concern. I think you might have misunderstood my words above due to inappropriate wording - about the unity fare. I think unity fare is one of the aspects that can show integrity of the system. Currently, one of the biggest reason Seoul Metro, KORAIL, SMRT, and Korail A'REX doesn't show these line on the system maps are because of different fare system - as drawing on same map could confuse the passengers. For now, I think we could separate U line to Uijeongbu City and Everline to Yongin City. For Seoul Metro system, I think these should be included: As a reference, these lines should be included in future: I've listed above just to re-clarity as it has been really contentious. It's basically the same but exclusion of U & Everline, as they are relatively loosely connected to the system. The list above is based on basic definitions of metro + metro trains having own way to go. And, as I've said before, inconsistency of longest line with external sources shouldn't be a justification to change the criteria of Seoul Metro System. We should rather clarify by telling multiple criteria that can be used, and many sources use certain criteria to evaluate Shanghai as longest. I think this debate should focus on determining logical criteria for Korean systems, as there are multiple systems in construction, and we can't have long debates everytime new line is added. If we adjust Seoul system to be shorter so that Shanghai becomes 1st for now, it would first lose integrity, but in long run, we would have to readjust the criteria everytime new line is added to Seoul System. Seoul system isn't a something that should depend on other line's fate. Considering that there are many extensions that would be done - such as Line 9 Extension Phase 2&3&4, Ui-Sinseol Line, Shin Ansan Line, Incheon Line 2, Line 7 Seoknam Extension, and a lot more. Cheers, people :) It's surely a very complex system. PS My foreign (two from West, one from East, one from Canada) teachers all call network of Seoul Metro 'subway' - even Gyeongchun line. By living in this place, you never get to really distinguish two as different systems. They are all part of the big Seoul Metro System. MinSik CHO (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Line 1 Jongno, Gyeongbu (till Cheonan), Gyeongin, Gyeongin Express
 * Line 2 ~ 9
 * Bundang
 * Shinbundang-DX
 * A'REX Seoul Aboveground - Digital Media City
 * Gyeongui except parts shared with KTX Haengshin Depot Line
 * Suin
 * Incheon
 * Seoul LRT Ui, Myeonmok, etc
 * Gyeongui-Jungang Juncture Yongsan line
 * Shinansan Line
 * Incheon 2
 * etc
 * Agreed. Cho and I again, agree on many points here. The official law from the official operator of Incheon Line 1 makes it very clear that it has always been a part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. We haven't suddenly merged them as others seem to have mistaken for - This list has neglected the official law for too long, partially because of a lack of interest but also as IJ and Cho have rightly pointed out, there haven't been sufficient sources. But now we have fully sourced evidence directly from the horse's mouth this situation is made crystal clear - The subway is speaking for itself and where it belongs to in the official legal law. The answer to this issue is in the source if you ask us. I agree with Cho that we should then remove Everline from the count until it joins the unity fare. I have already removed U Line so this should be easy adjustment. But as you rightly pointed out, Korail and the others aren't putting it up on some of their maps due to not sharing the unity fare which can cause confusion to users, not because they're not part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Source: http://www.joongboo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=901049 Hence, we shouldn't list them separately for now but leave them excluded until they join the unity fare, especially since Everline will be joing the unity fare within late February at the latest. I suppose this point was raised multiple times but I will say it again - The external English or Chinese newspaper/media is irrelevant without them citing any reliable references to start with. They're not rail experts. Cho's idea that definition vary from country to country makes perfect sense and that when viewed from a certain group, the Shanghai metro may be the longest. But we need to apply a concrete and clear criteria to the list, which we already have on this article with its many reliable, official sources. I totally agree that somebody comes and challenges the Seoul tally every time some new subway comes that passes it - Seoul's count is irrelevant from media boasts of Shanghai and should remain independent from such claims. There are internationally agreed criteria defining a metro set out in the official sources and we should stick to that, not get skewed away by a narrow spectrum of media reports. Cho's list is good recap of the previous list - Just to let you know, I suppose you forgot to add Gyeongwon there and we no longer call the underground section of Line 1 Jongno but that's absolutely okay. I have summed up your list into the list used on Seoul tally's reference, with Everline and U Line removed until they join unity fare as we agreed:

Given that Incheon Transit made amendments to the law each time a new subway joined the system, I'm pretty sure amendments will be made soon for Everline once it joins the unity fare within a few weeks. Until then, we can leave this one out as per the source. I will also add the official law to a note on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's name on the list just to make things crystal clear to everyone. Massyparcer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seoul Subway Line 1 (193.2 km / 90 stations): Dongducheon-Cheonan, Guro-Incheon and Byeongjeom-Seodongtan
 * Seoul Subway Lines 2-9 (378.3 km / 324 stations)
 * Bundang, Sinbundang and Suin Lines and Incheon Subway Line 1: (112.7 km / 80 stations)
 * AREX (9.5 km / 4 stations): Digital Media City-Seoul Station
 * Gyeongui Line (45.5 km / 20 stations): Digital Media City-Gongdeok, Susaek-Munsan

And still yet another reference lists Shanghai as the "longest in the world": So we're still absolutely counting Seoul wrong here. --IJBall (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IJ you are a good editor on other articles, so I don't see why you are continuing to ignore the consensus and the official legal law from the official operator of the Seoul Metrpolitan Subway, an Asian system you have admitted you don't know much about. If you haven't read the consensus above, we have made a very clear agreement that your English media reports are not reliable sources and that the criteria used by each newspaper varies from media to media and that when measured by a certain closed group with their potentially original researched criteria, Shanghai may be the longest. The reference you just posted proves that news media are highly unreliable sources - They don't even correlate to the figures on Shanghai Metro here. WP:Sources says that sources must directly support the article, yet none of your English media reports make any direct support here. If you have a problem with Seoul's count, I suggest you contact the official operators, because they are the sources of the official figures, not us. It's pretty incredible that something taken so granted and never debated in Seoul needs to go as far as needing the publication of the official legal law from the official operator to make it crystal clear to people who have never been to Seoul. If you haven't read the official definition on the legal law from the official operator, I will post it here again for reference:

Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp Massyparcer (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I asked Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) about how they think about defining 'Seoul Metro System'. They replied that in respect to related Korean laws, They replied that internally, by using term 'Seoul Metro System', they indicate So, they suggested (but not official) to use these lines as Seoul Metro System: The basic assertion of Korean government is that any 광역철도 line that has section in Seoul area and any 도시철도 line that are in Large Seoul Metropolitan Area. Applying this criteria, U&Yongin Line would be separated even after unity fare. The thing I expect some others to resist is that Korean Ministry - which actually maintains the system - perceives Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Jungang lines as metro lines. I also agree to the government that reflecting on local law, there are no faulty things to regard them as part of Seoul Metro System. Anyways, they've concreted that Seoul Metro extends to large Seoul area, including Ilsan/Gwacheon/Ansan sections. Using this criteria, Ui LRT, Shin Ansan, Line 9 Step 2~4 Extension, Sosa-Daegok-Wonsi, Meonmok, Incheon 2 will be included in near future. MinSik CHO (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Metro 1~9 including Gwacheon/Ansan/Ilsan Section
 * All metro lines that are operated by KORAIL and maintained by KR (Korean Railroad Infrastructure)
 * All metro lines in Large Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul+Incheon+Gyeonggi) that are operated by legal rapid transit companies (Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit, Incheon Metropolitan Rapid Transit)
 * All metro line sections that are operated in Seoul, and are seamlessly connected to these lines
 * Line 1~9
 * Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Jungang, A'REX, Suin, Bundang, Shinbundang, Incheon
 * EXCLUDES Yongin Line, U Line
 * This is the Korean reply that I mentioned above.
 * 평소 국토교통행정에 관심을 가져주시어 감사드리며, 귀하의 민원에 대해 아래와 같이 회신합니다.
 * 도시철도는 도시철도법에 근거하여 도시교통권역에서 건설운영되는 철도로 서울1호선~9호선, 인천1호선이 해당되며 지자체가 건설, 운영의 책임이 있으며, 그 외 과천선, 일산선, 안산선 등은 철도건설법에 근거하여 건설되고 철도사업법에 따라 운영되는 철도로 건설(철도시설공단)과 운영(철도공사)의 책임이 기본적으로 국가에 있습니다.
 * 수도권 전철은 법적인 용어는 아니나 일반적으로 수도권에서 운영되는 도시철도와 코레일이 운영하는 광역철도를 지칭하는 용어로 사용되고 있습니다. 서울 메트로 시스템은 서울지하철 시스템으로 이해할 수 있을것으로 판단되며 과천선이나 안산선처럼 서울로 직결운행되는 노선들은 서울 메트로 시스템에 포함시키고 서울 외곽지역에서 별도로 운행되며 서울로 지결되지 않은 용인선 등은 서울 메트로 시스템에서 제외할 수 있을 것으로 판단됩니다.
 * 그러나 수도권 전철이나 서울 메트로 시스템은 법적인 용어가 아니며 별도 정의가 없기 때문에 기준을 어떻게 잡느냐에 따라 그 범위는 달라질 수 있음을 알려드리니 참고하시기 바랍니다.
 * 위 답변에 문의 또는 궁금하신 사항이 있으시면 국토교통부 광역도시철도과(TEL 044-201-3967)로 전화주시면 성심성의껏 답변드리겠습니다.
 * [본 회신내용은 해당 질의에만 국한되며 개별 사실관계의 변동 등으로 인한 유사사례인 경우에 본 회신내용과 다른 해석이 있을 수 있습니다. 따라서 개별사안에 대한 별도의 증거자료로 활용하는 것은 국토교통부 견해와는 관련이 없음을 알려드리니 양해하시기 바랍니다]

Agreed. The government has definitely cleared up this issue very clearly. I agree with Cho that the Seoul Metro System (as the government calls it) is most accurately defined by the government who built and funded this system in the first place. There's no point in a random Wiki user who has never been to Seoul coming up with an original research and disagreeing with the government who founded this subway system and the official operator with no reliable source. And there are no other reliable sources than the government and the operator that directly back up the facts in this case as per WP:Sources. Not English or Chinese news media reports that have proven to be highly unreliable. We have two of the highest government bodies who agree with each other here, Incheon Transit, the official operator which makes the same definition on Article 3 in its Terms of Passenger Transportation and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, the Korean government which Cho mentioned. It couldn't get any clearer. I agree with the government and Cho that in its current state, both Ever and U Line can't be included in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. But as the government has said in Cho's reply that "기준을 어떻게 잡느냐에 따라 그 범위는 달라질 수 있음" - We have to see if their stance on this changes after they join the unity fare. After all, Korail wouldn't be listing the Everline in Bundang Line's subway map and making internal announcements in these lines for no reason. A reply from a Seoul Metro official shows they haven't included Everline in the metro maps due to confusion to users (because they do not allows free transfers) - Not for technical reasons. The government's reply says that Seoul Metropolitan Subway refers to " 일반적으로 수도권에서 운영되는 도시철도", where Ever and U Lin are both rapid transits operated in Sudogwon. I will contact the government again after Everline joins unity fare, as well as Seoul Metro on the map inclusion. As for lines like Jungang and Gyeongchun, I think they should be included in the list as per government definition, a view I share with Cho. But I also think that the other lines fully meet the American criteria used in this Wiki, so there is absolutely zero debate needed on those lines, even when applying American definitions or laws. The current count meets both Korean and every American/International law we have on this article, so there is no reason to disagree with that. Massyparcer (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)