Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 12

Need help with JR East
As per the definition above, Japan's JR East is a bona fide metro. Let's say it is also a bona fide metro, in addition to its long distance and Shinkansen routes.I am digging for metro info.

This govermment site lists the total JR route (I assume) length as 20,003.3 km, excluding Shinkansen Lines, it is 17633.7 km. Using that might be a bit unfair despite everything being connected to Tokyo, somehow. That source gives the JR non-Shinkansen network line for the Tokyo Prefecture alone as 345.0 km. As per other examples on this list, this would be likewise unfair. I am inclined to use the route length for what is known as the "Greater Tokyo Area," in this case Tokyo plus surrounding Saitama. Chiba, Kanagawa and Niigata. Adding up the non-Shinkansen route length of the JR in the Greater Tokyo Area would yield a total route length of 2,237 km. Is this what we should use? I know, routine calculations are allowed, but I don't want to be blamed for Original Research. Opinions? BsBsBs (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, JReast uses specific station to station fares, which fits under the U.S. Department of Transportation's definition of a commuter rail. JR is just like Go Transit in Greater Toronto Area that uses specific station to station charges, which is not on this list. Can we have a source regarding JR's fares for the Greater Tokyo Area please? Because the only ones I can find are the ones for Shinkansen and Express trains http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/charge/index.asp that show specific station to station charges. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We just agreed that fare structures are totally irrelevant. Not mentioned by UITP. This is great, because it spares us the delving into the nitty-gritty as discussed in Railwaygazette: "Each of the different service providers has its own scale of fares, and because fares are based on the distance travelled in the particular company's segment of the network, the fare structure is highly complex compared with a zone-based system. For example, the number of different fares in use at JR Tokyo metropolitan area stations alone totals 100000." This article from 2004 is very interesting. It describes how the adoption of "Suica-compatible cards by 53 operators in the Tokyo area in 2006 will form the world's largest public transport smart card network, doubling the number of Suica users to around 15 million." It also spares us from looking at the wrong sources. http://www.hyperdia.com/en/ btw. gives us most fares in Japan. Not that we would need them for this discussion.BsBsBs (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not on UITP, yet it is on the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Transit Database which says that fares are the main characteristics of commuter rail. So the source above suggests that JR basically has different fares even among its own lines or stations. This can't be a unified metro system but a commuter rail. Also, previous editors have raised concern that there are ghost metros and track sharing with Shinkansen or other intercity rail/commuter rail on JR which breaches UITP's "high frequency of service" and "totally independent from other traffic" criteria. The consensus seems that JR is a commuter rail as mentioned as a "train", with Tokyo Metro and Toei mentioned as subway here: http://expatsguide.jp/ch13 Massyparcer (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We just agreed that it is UITP, and neither US DOT, nor the Expat Guide. Which is great, because it keeps us from becoming victims of circuitous logic. BsBsBs (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have shown other sources as additional evidence to show you that JR is commuter rail. We have agreed to consult both UITP and USDT to distinguish metros and commuter rails. UITP does not have a definition for commuter rail, only for metro. That's why it's important to look at the US Department of Transportation's definition because that's the most authoritative definition we have for commuter rails. The biggest problem with JR is that fares are completely different for even its own lines unlike Tokyo Metro or Toei, which are completely integrated systems, which is clearly pointing to commuter rail practices. Also, if you look at the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes", there are sections about light rail, rail rapid transit/metro, commuter rail, regional rail and more. From the section Regional rail: "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." Massyparcer (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the route length? BsBsBs (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

JR fits the commuter rail's definition perfectly and has always been in the commuter rail list at Wikipedia. Even the Japan Railway and Transport Review says they are commuter trains: http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr09/pdf/photo.pdf. A commuter rail is "a transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas.

Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by: It does not include:
 * Multi-trip tickets
 * Specific station to station fares
 * Railroad employment practices, and
 * Usually only one or two stations in the central business district.
 * Heavy rail (HR) rapid transit, or
 * Light rail (LR) / streetcar transit service.

Intercity rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Predominantly commuter service means that for any given trip segment (i.e., distance between any two stations), more than 50 percent of the average daily ridership travels on the train at least three times a week. Only the predominantly commuter service portion of an intercity route is eligible for inclusion when determining commuter rail (CR) route miles." Source: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm Massyparcer (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with Massyparcer - from everything I have heard (which isn't much on this topic, granted), JR is a commuter rail system, and has been categorized as such. Thus, it does not belong here... --IJBall (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Said Massyparcer 13:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC):


 * He then proceeded to immediately contradict himself, saying that "The U.S. Department of Transportation's definition of commuter rail should also be taken into account to distinguish metros from commuter rails. And that means no specific station to station fares for metros, which is the characteristic of a commuter rail."
 * Overlooking the fact the the UITP doesn't say that there cannot be commuter type traffic on Metros, Massyparcer tried to disqualify the JR for station to station fares which the JR doesn't have (it uses distance fares). After hearing that the JR has 141 stations in the Tokyo Metro area, Massyparcer quoted a rule that says a commuter rail is characterized by "usually only one or two stations in the central business district." He also quoted a rule that specifies that commuter rail does "Not include Heavy rail (HR) rapid transit." I think we can stipulate that 10 car EMUs running at intervals as short as 3 minutes can't possibly be called commuter rail. It was eloquently proven that the JR can't possibly be commuter rail.
 * Again, not that it would matter. By the UITP definition, JR East is a Metro.
 * By my own private assessment, JR is many things. I will happily concede that some of their trains are commuter trains, such as the Home Liner. Some of their trains go faster than 300km/h. Many of their trains are part of a Tokyo Metro System. Some trains start out as regional rail, turn into metro trains, and exit on the other side of the city as regional trains. It's hard to grasp, and it clearly exceeds the comprehension of some. Again, this is my private assessment, and it does not matter.
 * As for combining the UITP and US DOT, we were warned against Original Research, and we won't do it. Remember, WP:OR warns: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
 * Now could it be that the sudden opposition against a UITP definition, which was praised highly a few hours ago as a consensus, comes from the sudden realization that under this rule, Seoul would be #2? Also, a few hours ago, it was said:

To be fair, allow me to point out that such a SYSTEM, applied to Tokyo, would yield more than 4,000 km.BsBsBs (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Whoa, if you're not me, then I suggest you to refrain from pretending to know how I think. Also, please refrain from quoting my non-final judgement and use that as an excuse to portray me in the way you want. I haven't contradicted myself but made sure that we must distinguish between commuter rails and metros because I knew people would put commuter rails under metro solely on UITP's definition. I haven't overlooked that there are commuter type of traffic on metros, this is something I agree. I haven't tried to disqualify as you say - I have only applied the official definition from the USDT to JR. Just because there are many EMU cars and it has a high service frequency (which is not true for all JR lines btw) does not mean it's a metro. There are other criteria, including not having multi-trip tickets and specific station to station fares. By that definition, JR is a commuter rail because it uses completely different fare structures for even its own lines - It doesn't matter whether it is counted by distance or zones, it must be uniformly and seamlessly applied to all lines under JR. But that's unfortunately not the case. Only Tokyo Metro and Toei are. As you said, we can't have regional rail entering the metro and exiting as a regional rail - This is a commuter rail and UITP's definition makes clear that we cannot have track sharing going on since their definition says that it must be on "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". This was raised numerous times by previous editors. We haven't created a conclusion C but used USDT as an additional reference to guide us in separating metros from commuter rails. The primary source used as we have agreed is the UITP. I would appreciate if you would stop linking me with Seoul because I have made clear multiple times that I'm only interested in applying criteria from reliable and official sources, just like you probably are. If by multi-modal systems you mean mixing commuter rail and metros, we have always been against this idea on this article for a very long time because it is a List of metro systems and there is a separate List of commuter rails where JR has always been. Massyparcer (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor is kindly asked to notify other editors when he has come to a final judgement so that other editors don't have to waste time and effort responding to contradicting statements that change faster than they can type. In the meantime, that editor will be left alone as requested.BsBsBs (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Will try to get my final judgement right in one go so there is no need to notify anybody of what I write. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's get to work
We can argue this for many years more, and we won't get anywhere without a clear an unambiguous list definition. Please enter your proposal for a new list definition. You can change the name of the list and the first two sentences of the article. Not more than two sentences are allowed for this exercise. (More will be added later.)

Please sign your entries. Please do not debate any entries just yet. If you don't like an entry, write a better one. Definitions must be sourced.

I start with the current status.

List of metro systems

The International Association of Public Transport (L’Union Internationale des Transports Publics, or UITP) defines metro systems as urban passenger transport systems, "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic." This is a list of Metros according to this definition.

BsBsBs (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Organizational Matters
The refined inclusion criteria according to the 2011 UITP definition for “Metros” are expected to attract many new entries to this list. This necessitates a little housekeeping. Possibly a lot.


 * References. There are many unreferenced entries. WP requires verifiable references and reliable sources. To set the standard for new entries, all current entries should be properly referenced, also to avail them to the scrutiny by other editors. WP:IRS requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Unreferenced material is subject to deletion. All unreferenced entries in this list are hereby challenged. (Should we set a tag?) Added references protect from extinction.


 * Sources/References of current and new entries should be checked for whether they support the entry. Source still there? Correctly cited? Please check numbers in stations, system length, etc. Numbers get updated in the sources. Sometimes, edits can go astray. Double-check data. Newspapers can and are often wrong/get updated later. Careful with Google translate. Are they counting route length as required? Or the tracks? Double-check again. Just as a for instance: The current list leader, Seoul, is not properly referenced, and this after typhoon-grade talk. Shanghai does not conform with the cited source. Moscow needs a small update. For Beijing, I would want a better source than the story of a little girl riding the subway.


 * Introduction – Is it clear? Does it need to be reworked? WP sets high standards for lists and list entries. Is this global list sufficiently sensitive to country-specific issues?   Remember: “Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.” Opinions of what is clear clearly differ.


 * Whole or separate city systems? It appears as if it was the custom that separately owned “Systems” get a separate entry. Seoul has set a precedent for this to change. Should all “systems” be bunched into one city? If yes, what references are needed for the listed data? Is adding up their stations, system length, routine calculations? Please discuss.


 * If we continue separate systems for one city: Should their stations, system length etc. be added up in the table as a subtotal by city? Can this be performed automatically by the template? Doing so may well avoid another Korean War situation.


 * What is a city? By their very nature, Metros often serve areas much larger than cities, a.k.a. the Metropolitan Area. Definitions differ. Where does this list draw the line? What defines the Metro as in Metropolitan Area? Example: Tokyo/Yokohama and what is known as the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Or rather the Tokyo Metropolis?


 * Once the city/metro area issue is solved, how does this impact on data? Test it with Japan’s JR or France’s RER. Where do routine calculations end, where does Original Research start? It can be determined via consensus – within narrow limits.


 * Grey areas: Remember, obvious grey areas not covered by a referenced source may be clarified in the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the list. For instance, UITP does not define “urban” – which is an elastic term. In this case, it is perfectly acceptable to write (after a real consensus, and in accordance with WP rules): “For the purpose of this list, ‘urban’ means …”


 * House rules: Some lists publish “house rules” for editors – not necessarily in the intro, but in a place where they can be easily found. For instance in the remarks at the beginning of the list source – not buried under a wall of rambling comments. Do we need to spell out not to beat dead horses (such as "multi trip tickets" et al), or do we assume that it is evident from the definitions/inclusion criteria?


 * Sanity check. Always check your assumptions/recommendations with live data. Using extreme cases (very large/very small) often helps in finding flaws. Don't ignore/argue them away.

'''Whatever we do, it must comply with WP regs. Remember: Consensus cannot repeal WP rules. (At least not the consensus of a few editors here.)  Remember: “Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.”'''

Forgot anything? Please discuss. There are many points that should be discussed, and not just by one or two editors. BsBsBs (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I suggest people to read the name of this list to grasp the purpose of this article. It says "List of metro systems". And it's just that - A list of metro systems. We must sort it by fully integrated, seamless metro systems that are officially recognized by their respective owners and operators to be one system. Any system that does not have such sources must be challenged, as BsBsBs has pointed out. Whether it goes from one city to another is not relevant because as BsBsBs has pointed out, " by their very nature, Metros often serve areas much larger than cities, a.k.a. the Metropolitan Area." San Francisco's BART, for example, crosses many different cities around the San Francisco Bay Area. The Tyne & Wear Metro in England also crosses two different cities, but one metropolitan area. Many other examples exist and the 2011 UIPT's definition makes it clear that a metro must be intended to serve the local/urban/suburban area, which can be multiple administrative cities, so long as they're part of one metropolitan area. However, definitions of such areas differ and we do not have the right to draw any lines here, I'm afraid, because that would breach WP:Original research right away. The evidence must come directly from the official operator and owners of these systems to verify what is considered one system because as BsBsBs has pointed out, our potentially originally researched "consensus cannot repeal WP rules". People citing news journalists and writers as a source are again going potentially into original research territory without these media reports quoting the official operator or owner directly. The only reliable source of a fully integrated, seamless metro system that we have for Tokyo is the Tokyo Metro and Toei. There's no official source of a "Tokyo Subway", hence why they're listed separately. Everything must be done through official evidence and sources, because we're not experts and defining it ourselves through consensus is dangerous original research that will be challenged again. Previous editors have made it clear numerous times that JR and RER are commuter rail by any measure, fitting USDT and APTA's definition of commuter rail perfectly. Both use specific station to station fares, which are the very characteristic of commuter rails. Again, I would like to emphasize BsBsBs's point that "inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying". Massyparcer (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to BsBsBs's new groundless claim that Seoul is "not properly referenced", I question him whether he has even bothered to read the sources from the official operator and owners of that system. I would like to emphasize that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", with directly in bold as quoted from WP:OR. However, I do agree that Seoul's count needs to reflect BsBsBs's new rules, which was that UITP allows track sharing with intercity trains or any other rail traffic. Massyparcer (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think my position on "Whole or separate city systems?" is already clear from previous discussion - this list has traditionally defined "system" by "owner/operator", and we should continue to do that, as that is a logical way to define what a "system" is. Some large cities will sometimes have two or more systems which, together, could be considered to be a "rapid transit network", but we should not "bundle" them together.
 * We should also continue to subtract out any Light rail or Commuter rail lines that are, in some cities, owned or operated by the same agency that owns or operates the Heavy rail components of that metropolitan rapid transit network (e.g. L.A. Metro Rail, SEPTA, etc.) as we have been doing.
 * My specific concern, which I'm not sure is on your list, is that we need to more rigorously apply the "volume of passenger" criteria to this list - there are a number of systems (e.g. most of the Italian systems, for example; I suspect most of the Near and Middle Asian systems would actually be in this category too; I suspect Rennes in France is another one of these...), which because of the specifics of how they operate (e.g. headways, number of trains per train set, etc.), are not in fact true "heavy rail" systems, but are in fact "Light metros". Up to this point they've been allowed to stay in the list because they call themselves "Metros" - but, by passenger volume, they actually are closer to Light rail passenger loads, and so should be moved over to the Light metro list permanently and stricken from here. It's not enough to just be "fully grade-separated" to qualify as a "metro" - if not, why aren't we counting L.A. Metro Rail's Green Line (which is fully grade-separated) in with L.A. Metro Rail on this list too for example?... --IJBall (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IJBall's idea of defining it by owner/operator works well generally speaking for most countries and systems, which explains his view on that. Unfortunately, that traditional definition of defining by owner/operator doesn't work for places which have multiple operators for a single system. I think it's very important that if those official operators say that they are operators of one system, then we must list as per the sources. This must be written confirmation or legal law from the official operator/owner. Again, remember not to violate WP:OR people. Only official, reliable sources please, by which we're talking about the official operator/owners. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @IJBall:
 * Subtracting out: Personally, I tend to be against any changes to cited data, simply because the data in the reference do no longer agree with the data as reflected in the article, thereby creating confusion and attracting accusations of WP:OR. Also, we need to be aware that WP data is in turn cited by media, researchers etc. When doing so, the "algorithm" used to "adjust" the data gets lost. Checking WP:NOR, such adjustments are not allowed. WP:NOR allow some math, but it must be limited and transparent. If we can find a solution where the original data are reproducible, and where it is clear - in each case - what was adjusted and why, then that might be a way. We should seek the opinion of an uninvolved admin to protect us from later claims of shenanigans.


 * Volume of passengers, Light/Heavy/Commuter It is - at least IMO - perfectly acceptable to set cutoff points for list entries. Many other lists have lower cutoffs to protect them from inflation. Of course, that means that the cutoff parameter is a mandatory part of the list entry. Something like "This list contains metros around the world with more than XXXXXX riders per ..." (Day? Month? Year?) would conform with common practice. The same can be applied to other parameters - if it makes sense, and if it is nondiscriminatory. I recommend staying away from Light/Heavy rail, et al, because doing so, we would enter the realm of definitions, and we would contradict the definition that is in force. Light/Heavy/Commuter means different things (or nothing) around the world. See grid. After a lot of thinking, and checking with its worldwide members, the UITP doesn't use it to classify a railroad as a metro. And so must we. By saying "We list here metros larger than x" we don't say they aren't metros. We simply say we don't list them.


 * Having done a few live data checks, I am more concerned with cases where the Metro operator also operates long distance tracks and trains, and where their data are bunched into overall statistics. Or where adjoining Metros overlap. I have no answer.

BsBsBs (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On "subtracting out": I don't think there's any need to do that to any "currently listed" systems (with perhaps only one or two recent additions), as it has already been done, with accompanying notes, and in at least some of the cases with accompanying references (e.g. LA Metro Rail, SEPTA; I think there are a couple of French and Italian systems that also already have "Commuter rail" lines excluded too, but they may not have accompanying 'Notes' specifying that...). There should be no issue with this.
 * Again, if we're going to start bundling in Light rail and Commuter rail lines in with these systems, then a 'name change' (to List of metropolitan rapid transit systems) would no longer be advisable - it would actually be required. --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with IJ that we can't bundle light rail or commuter rails into this list. They have separate definitions from APTA and USDT. I'm not sure if we can include a tram or streetcar as a metro just because the cited source says it's a metro but in that case, we can always contact the official operator for clarification. I agree with BsBsBs that of course routine calculations are fine so long as it conforms to WP:NOR. I think from the discussions just prior to this, there was heavy consensus by multiple editors that setting an arbitrary number should never be done when there are no sources that directly mention those numbers. WP:OR says that we have no rights to invent an arbitrary number. Nonetheless, I agree with IJ that light metros should be confined to the definition of a light metro, although the sources do not make entirely clear what criteria is used to differentiate the two: As for BsBsBs's another concern about metro operators also running other kind of rail, we always have their official definition and the definitions of UIPT, APTA and USDT to help us out. Massyparcer (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@IJBall:

The guiding definition for "Metro" is by the UITP, not by us. We may find the definition flawed, too broad, bad, confusing - but we may not write a new definition, at least not here. "Metro" is only defined by the UITP, and the UITP clearly does not use Light/heavy/commuter rail as part of their definition.

The term "commuter rail" does not exist in most parts of the world. "Light" and "Heavy" rail mean different things in different places of the world. That's (I guess) why the UITP doesn't go there.

In case we want to go there nonetheless, as inadvisable as it may be: If you read the definitions carefully, you will note that neither the NTD nor the APTA say that a Metro cannot be Light or commuter.

Both the NTD and the APTA simply define "commuter" - that's it. They don't say a metro can't be commuter. With a hairsplitting interpretation - and there certainly would be no shortage of split hairs around here - it could even be said that the APTA calls commuter rail a metro. I don't say it, it is irrelevant.

All define "light" (slightly differently) - that's it, nobody says Metro can't be light. The APTA says Heavy can also be "called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail." It doesn't say Metro MUST be heavy. "Heavy can be Metro" does not equal "Metro cannot be Light." There is wisdom in outlawing OR at WP, as painful as it sometimes may be.

HOWEVER, both the APTA and NTD are irrelevant when it comes to defining what a "Metro" is. They have not done it - and even if they would have at some point past, they would now be trumped by an international definition in an international context. It is perfectly imaginable that the UITP asked its many members around the world how they would define "Metro." After all, this is how standard-writing gets started. And it is perfectly imaginable that many UITP members around the world replied: "Commuter rail? Heavy? Light? What are you talking about?" The APTA is a member of the UITP, and as such, they are part of the consensus that was reached and that was papered in 2011. Bringing ambiguous light/heavy/commuter back in play after the UITP doesn't touch it, and after their definition - again, the only authoritative definition we could find - clearly does not mention light/heavy/commuter, simply would mean a frontal collision with everything that is holy at Wikipedia.

That the UITP definition is very broad is agreed. That it will mean a flood of wannabe Metros is agreed. We won't change this by fudging this list.

I agree with you that this might mean a possible name change to "List of metropolitan rapid transit systems." Which is a completely different matter. On a global scale, the "Metro" paradigm appears to be shifting towards "metropolitan rapid transit," whether we like it or not. This is not what I want, this is simply something I observe.

There are some other options than renaming the list. If there is consensus (by a few more) to ditch this one, then we can start a map exercise and game a few options. If not, we have to play the cards which we have been dealt.BsBsBs (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we're all getting tired of your repeated controversial shunning of APTA and USDT's definitions of light and commuter rails, which has no consensus support as IJBall made clear. You're too over-advocating for your 2011 UITP paper for some reason and ignoring what other editors have been rightfully trying to do with this article for years, as IJ pointed out. As much as I will try to stay as civil as possible, I think it's time to be bold and deal with this in an objective manner. I have raised this concern previously, but you decided to ignore to respond to it for some reason so I will say it again:


 * I have told you before that UITP is not the holy bible as you want it to be. The document you showed is flawed because it's not for the American or Asian standardization bodies and that's why we need APTA and USDT's definitions to give a more weighted consensus. The recommendations it made are most likely for Europeans only. That document is for voluntary use, it's not mandatory. It's very important to look at the purpose of a source before you make judgement out of it. If you can show us a definition from UITP that is for American, European and Asian standardization bodies, then we can of course ditch APTA and USDT definitions of metro. But that's unfortunately not the case here, I'm afraid. I can say that UITP's 2011 metro definition and APTA/USDT's heavy rail definitions agree with each other, so I don't see what the problem is. You're constantly making nonsense claims that APTA doesn't define metro, when in reality, APTA makes clear that heavy rail is also called metro. And let's not go into your original research territory calling that UITP somehow "trumped" APTA, USDT, or any other source for that matter. I don't get why you're making groundless, totally original researched claims that APTA somehow reached a "consensus" with UITP when that 2011 paper is intended for the European standardization bodies for voluntary use and you have no source to prove UITP nor APTA's view. Remember that UITP was originally created when "Europe’s 50 main tramway operators came together in Brussels to create the “Union Internationale de Tramways/Internationaler Permanenter Strassenbahn-Verein”". It only had European members to start with, and even then, only members of tram operators.


 * May I point out that there is way too much original research in what you just said above? I mean, you would need a published source directly from UITP to prove that commuter rails and light rails are also metros and that USDT and APTA are wrong, which you don't have. Can I kindly remind you that your reverse logic is breaking WP:OR substantially and that you need direct evidence from official sources like UITP to backup everything you claim? Because if you don't, then nothing is proven. You're pretending as if you're the UITP with zero sources to backup your controversial claims. IJ and I have been highly concerned that your extremely controversial moves all need direct proof from UITP to justify all your claims. Until then, they're nothing but invented original research. This may sound harsh, but it's how Wikipedia works. Any unsourced claims may be challenged. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" quoted from WP:Verifiability. While UITP, APTA and USDT all agree on the definition of a metro (also called heavy rail in America), WP:Verifiability also says this: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." So there's no reason to shun reliable sources like APTA and USDT. Like IJ has pointed out, you're trying to overturn something numerous editors have been doing with this list for years with unverified original research, with no direct evidence from UITP. Remember that WP:What is consensus? makes clear that you " may wish to promote an original theory or host personal information, but these activities are not permitted under Wikipedia policy". So the key thing to take home at the end of the day is direct proof and evidence from the reliable sources.


 * I really don't like making myself unpopular here through pulling out Wikipedia guidelines, but we need to be bold in addressing wrongdoings. I have to warn editors of some basic rules we have here at Wikipedia, which is not to canvass and personally attack other editors through user talk pages based on groundless claims and personal opinions.. As tempting it is to promote one's original theory through such acts, I need to ask good-faithed editors to refrain from questioning a certain editor's motives, which is basically taboo as per WP:What is consensus? which clearly says "Don't question the other party's motive." Please read WP:AGF. Indirect hostilities lead to burnouts with other editors fast. Nobody likes being gossiped around negatively and unfairly by other editors, which is a case of Wikihounding. Remember that WP:Civility makes clear that "personal attacks aren't acceptable anywhere" in Wikipedia, including user talk pages. I'm sure we are all here to contribute, not hurt this article. Such acts only breed more hostilities and won't help to make this article better, where we need neutral and unbiased contributions, and address every editor's genuine concerns fairly and in a nondiscriminatory way. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

To be frank, the whole reason this started is because a new, overly inclusive criteria has been put put forward by an editor. How that new criteria is developed is anyone guess but I am pretty sure everyone here knows the ultimate motive behind this criteria. As I have repeatedly warned last year and January of this year:

As IJBall and Ymblanter have pointed out the new criteria is overly inclusive. As BsBsBs demonstrated by flooding the list with "new metros" based on new criteria that are generally not accepted as being rapid transit. This really shows that is new criteria does not hold water, is inconsistent, and erodes the list's credibility. In addition it also faults of being synthesis, original research and arguably is used to push a certain POV. My fix? Put the list back to what it originally was, cited and consistent. I have argued what I needed to argue 2 months ago. The fact that the new criteria is crumbling before the creators eyes after a short lived 1 month is proof that is not the right direction to define a metro.Terramorphous (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Terramorphous basically. The fix is simple - We have been given three reliable cards and they are UITP, USDT and APTA. They dictate what a metro and commuter rail is, not us. Editors need to stop advocating just one source and stop ignoring APTA and USDT's definitions of commuter rails. They make clear what a commuter rail is and all of the systems that Terramorphous is concerned fit the official sources' definitions of commuter rail. Hence, this was never a problem before. We really need to stop over-advocating one source just to promote a particular system. If BsBsBs really wants to ignore USDT and APTA with a valid reason, then he needs to provide us with direct proof and evidence from the sources to avoid being accused of original research and POV. Massyparcer (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Terramorphous: As stated repeatedly, but possibly drowned by walls of ever-changing text, the editors of this list must decide what they want this list to be. Once decided, they must communicate clearly and unambiguously what this list is. After one, or at max two sentences, a complete newcomer must understand what to expect from this list, what it includes and what it excludes.

If the following looks like TL:NR, stop here, and get to work on a clear, unambiguous, verifiable, self-explanatory one/two sentence list definition.

Still with me? Ok, in that case:

There are many options. I am open to anything that makes sense, from a list of subways/undergrounds/tubes, all the way to a list of rapid transit systems. Should editors decide to turn this into a list of Metro hypermarkets, or a list of rock bands called “Metro,” I will support it. What I will not support is a mess that invites constant edit warring and drama, simply because it is not clear what this list is.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists tells us what to do:


 * "The precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section, not the title"
 * "The list title should not be misleading"
 * "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear."
 * "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
 * "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies "

The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:


 * "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. "
 * "Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. "
 * "Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. "
 * "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source."
 * "Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted."

Lastly, and in my eyes most importantly, the guidance essay says:


 * “When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? … Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.”

Does this sound familiar?

Of course, this is easier said than done, as many lists on Wikipedia show. It is hard work to get to a clear, unambiguous list definition that is obvious to both the readers and the editors around the world. Always test your list definition with extreme and borderline cases. If you have the slightest doubt on how to handle them, the definition needs more work.

Writing list definitions may not be for people who just started editing. It requires an ability to think things through, to communicate clearly, and to grasp complicated concepts such as WP:NOR. When I started editing here, I was completely shocked by it. Where I came from, I was asked to do my own, in-depth research, and not to copy anything from others. “Unoriginal research” was an invective, not a guiding principle. It took me many years to get used to it, and editors who have problems with it have my sympathy.

Just as one example: If we have three authoritative sources for a definition, and if we don't quite like any of them, we then can't take a little from A, add a little from B and C and say they all defined it as D. This would be textbook OR, and it would be fraudulent. I don't mind if we do it in a blog, or if a magazine does it, but at WP, we absolutely can't.

If we have three definitions, then WP gives us these choices:


 * Editors choose one of the three by consensus (with all the applicable caveats for notability, verifiability et al.) The intro then says: “Source A defines ‘Metro System” as … This is a list of Metro systems according to this definition.”
 * Editors choose that all three definitions are valid. The intro then says: “Source A defines ‘Metro System” as … Source B says a Metro is a …, and source C calls it a …. All definitions are equally valid, and this is an all-inclusive list of Metro systems according to any of the three definitions.”

That's basically it. Of course, we can toss all three definitions and define a Metro as whatever we like. Tomorrow, we will have a big "Citation needed" tag, and next week, we will have a huge edit war. Basically, we will have a situation like now. BsBsBs (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @user:Terramorphous: Please tell me where I “flooded the list with ‘new metros.’ ” If you have me confused with someone else, I understand. Ever since I re-joined the ranks of the editors of this list last week, and in an attempt to stop a near-nuclear edit war, I added exactly one (1) metro, namely the Munich S-Bahn. I fully know that this had been disputed, added, and removed in the past. It was added intentionally, as a teaching aid. I added the Munich S-Bahn not because I took that train to school long before there was an S-Bahn. I did it to illustrate to where the revised UITP definition will lead. There probably are hundreds more that fall under the current UITP definition. Tokyo alone would add probably 20-30 of what is now a "Metro", including the expressly mentioned monorail. I intentionally did not add those, even if many of them are much "heavier" than many marginal lines that are on the list.


 * Before I found the UITP reference, the list claimed a definition from multiple sources, but had NONE. The UITP ref was dead. The cited APTA Factbook and the NTD database do NOT define Metro, as the table above illustrates. We can’t put our heads in the sand, believing in non-existent references, and blast editors with rules and definitions that simply are not there.


 * Editors must understand to keep list entries in accordance with the list definition. If they think certain entries should not be there, then they must find a clear definition that excludes these entries in a neutral, and non-discriminatory manner.BsBsBs (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, at this point, I have to challenge this claim that "NONE" of the references "back up the definitions" - that is clearly not the case. 1) The UITP definition that was a 'valid link' up until a couple of weeks ago did - the fact that the redesigned UITP website eliminated that page doesn't change the fact that for years they had a definition that matched this page's. 2) This page makes clear (but I'll reword that sentence to make it even clearer) that the terms "metro" and "heavy rail" are synonymous, and thus the "heavy rail" definition from APTA applies equally to the term "metro". And, again, as APTA has different definitions for "heavy rail (aka. metro)", "light rail", and "commuter rail", they can't just be mixed interchangeably. You really seem to be wanting to treat the "new" UITP reference on this topic as the only "valid" reference, when there are multiple references on this page that back up the current consensus, and UITP itself did as well up until a couple of weeks ago. --IJBall (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with IJBall. Thank you for clarifying what I have been trying to clarify to BsBsBs multiple times in my long worded posts before - I think it's fair to say that at this point, everybody here including me, IJBall and Terramorphous all agree that we have clear definitions of metro (also called heavy rail in America) and commuter rails from UITP, APTA and USDT and that we must stick to that. As much as BsBsBs is repeatedly claiming that we need to "choose" a source over another - I will make this clear: We don't have any right to selectively "choose" one source over another as this involves original research and creates accusations of POV. Systems that fall under UITP/APTA/USDT's metro definition are metros. Systems that fall under APTA/USDT's definition of commuter rails are commuter rails. It's as simple as that. For example, JR East falls perfectly under APTA/USDT's commuter rail definition and has therefore been listed under the List of commuter rails. As IJBall and Terramorphous pointed out, editors really need to stop over-advocating UITP's sole definition to include anything from light to commuter rails, which do not have a place here. Massyparcer (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@IJBall: It had NONE. The NTD and APTA cites are no stress-resistant sources. When I came on, the UITP link was dead. Having lived for a long time is no proof that you are still alive. I found the UITP link in Google cache and offered it up in talk.  Knowing well that Google will be challenged, I dug further, spent a lot of time nobody else want to spend and finally found what now is the article's prime source. Without that, the link would still be dead. The UITP definition edit has survived the only real test of a consensus having in fact been reached: It was confirmed by other editors’ edits,  the cite was improved  by other editors. The fact that the new definition offers more leeway was used by one editor to raise track length and station count of Seoul.  The higher numbers quickly found their way into other lists at WP. Quite puzzlingly, the same editor who made those edits now appears to vehemently argue against the UITP definition he had used to substantiate the edits. Or maybe not, I have given up on trying to find out.

Of course, a consensus can change. If someone would find a newer UITP source where they have changed their minds and say that Metro equals Heavy Rail, that it is not Metro when it has level crossings, other trains on their tracks, worse than 10 minute service intervals, multi trip tickets, and station to station fares, then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, because it would settle many years of holy wars.

Please correct me where I am wrong in the following:


 * 1) The UITP definition in its current version is the most recent authoritative source available.
 * 2) It is the only currently available authoritative source with a global perspective, which is needed for a global list.
 * 3) The UITP speaks for 1,300 members from 92 countries.
 * 4) Neither the NTD nor APTA define Metro.
 * 5) Neither the NTD nor APTA say Metro must be Heavy Rail
 * 6) Neither the NTD nor APTA say Metro cannot be Light Rail or Commuter
 * 7) The NTD does not even MENTION Metro in the source.
 * 8) The APTA says that Heavy Rail can be “also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail.” It does not say “Metro must be Heavy Rail.” A reliable source tells me that the current members of the House of Representatives can be called Republicans or Democrats. It would be a very big leap of misplaced faith to construe this into “it’s only a Representative if he or she is Republican.”
 * 9) To make matters worse, the APTA says that “Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail).” “Metropolitan Rail” is used synonymously with “Metro” in many places around the world, even in Passenger rail terminology (which our list is using to describe “Heavy Rail”). If we would accept it as proven according to WP standards that the APTA says “Metro” must be “Heavy Rail,”  any first grade student of wikilaw will use the precedent to argue that “Metro must be commuter rail.”

If I would have to argue for the other side in this grand debate, I would quickly forget the APTA source. It is not helpful.

I am somewhat of a WP:OR fundamentalist. As I said, I had to get used to it, and I learned. If “A can also be called b, c, d, or e” and I construe this into “it only is A if it is b” then I would commit a textbook case of WP:OR. I know, some have a hard time understanding this, set theory is not for everyone. The best advice I have been given in regards to OR is that “if it needs judgment, it probably is OR.” Currently, new entries or deletions of this list are hugely judgment-driven, they are considered by feel, not by facts.

I reiterate what I said before: I am not married to the current solution. It clearly is suboptimal. It appears to make a lot of editors unhappy. I have offered many new options. There probably are more. They should be discussed. Which is more worthwhile than these prayer-mill discussions.

I have listed above what Wikipedia demands from a list. Are we going to live up to WP standards?BsBsBs (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither the NTD nor APTA say Metro cannot be Light Rail or Commuter
 * Except that they are used, consistently, by the APTA as mutually exclusive terms. You assume incorrectly that the term "metropolitan rail" = metro (which is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized unless its part of a proper name). There's also the fact that huge definitional change is being pushed through based on a signle source that a) doesn't match any other source in the article, b) is very new, running afoul of WP:RECENTISM, c) doesn't match the definition used by the same organization just a short time ago (for all we know they were just being careless on the webpage), and d) greatly overstates the importance of that organization; they are not a governing body in anyway. That not one other editor is agreeing with you is a sure sign that there is no WP:CONSENSUS for any additions beyond the already-borderline case of the Munich S-Bahn. And that is the most important of all Wikipedia policies. In short, the single UITP source is not definitive, and it shouldn't be teated as such. oknazevad (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Gents: There are new editors among us. We should set an example and not let them pick up bad habits. I don’t like having to lecture other experienced editors on Wiki 101, for instance that the wikiism “recentism” means treating WP as a newspaper, and overloading an article with current affairs. Recentism definitely does not mean using a more than 2 years old source. We are also not setting the best example if we suddenly question the credentials of a source, which we happily used for six years. Until a week ago, a press release by the UITP was treated as if it was carried down Mount Sinai. Now suddenly, when a formal standard submission (they usually get rehashed in committee for years, and reflect a broad worldwide opinion) by the same source says something we don’t like, they suddenly are a bunch of two-bit sloppy tram operators who forgot to clean up their website. Come on, guys, let’s stop being silly.


 * Also, please don’t make me repeat for the umpteenth time that I am not married to the UITP, or any specific solution. Whoever says that better offers up proof real quick. What I want is a list that fairly represents the world’s metro systems in a global context, a list that is up to the high quality standards of WP. This article is cited in other media, we need to be responsible and make sure that no nonsense is printed elsewhere that would reflect badly on WP. The world is looking at this list, and what it sees, is a mess.


 * It’s easy to criticize. It’s a bit harder to work constructively. The experienced editors need to get together and formulate watertight list criteria that don’t leave readers and editors guessing. See above and below. Unless this is done with dispatch, further complaints deserve no more than a “tell me about it.”BsBsBs (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, you need to stop ignoring other editors' consensus and take a deep breath. Relax. I have never said that I "vehemently argue against the UITP definition" so I don't see why you're making groundless accusations. In every single post I have ever made here, I have supported UITP's definition, only pointing out the flaws with the 2011 paper because listen, no source is perfect. You're not understanding what I and so many other editors have been arguing against - That is, over-advocating UITP and ignoring USDT and APTA's definitions, which make clear that metro equals Heavy Rail. Specific station to station fares are explicitly mentioned as the main characteristic of commuter rails in USDT/APTA's definitions. You're confusing metro with metropolitan rail, which APTA defines as commuter rail. The Passenger rail terminology has no sources and is obviously original research. Why are you using original research to claim that metropolitan rail and metro are the same? Please stop cherry-picking. Your claim that your 2011 paper "reflect a broad worldwide opinion" is seriously flawed - I have argued multiple times that it is for European standardization bodies only. And it's for voluntary use, not even mandatory. If you truly believe that this list should be a list of "the world’s metro systems in a global context" as you claim so vehemently, I would question your source's intention first. UITP is of course authoritative, which I fully agree, but not your 2011 paper, which is flawed. You really need a wake-up call and need to stop being confused about that. This is why we should not ignore APTA and USDT. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't over-advocate and over-rely on a single source and not ignore the definitions of USDT and APTA. Massyparcer (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will give you an easy example to explain how things work here. Say the London underground satisfies UITP,APTA and USDT's metro/heavy rail definition. But it doesn't satisfy APTA/USDT's commuter rail definition, which is to have specific station to station fares. So it's a metro, not a commuter rail. In the case of RER and JR, they may partially satisfy UITP/APTA and USDT's metro/heavy rail definition but they fully satisfy APTA/USDT's commuter rail definition. In that case, they're clearly commuter rails. Can you see the difference? It's not difficult stuff to grasp. Massyparcer (talk)

Intro
The intro is derailing. The common reader, and we write this for the reader, has absolutely no idea what we are talking about.

To force a rewrite, I had to delete:

"The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail and commuter rail, is not always clear, and while UITP only makes distinctions between "metros" and "light rail", the U.S.'s APTA and FTA distinguish all three modes. "

I could not possibly edit this, my head is still spinning. What three modes???? What is the poet trying to tell us here? Please spend your energy and writing talents on a better list definition, and please don't allow wikilawyering to pollute articles. This is an encyclopedia, not the fine print of a car lease.BsBsBs (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The sentence is clear as day! What three modes?!? Metro, light rail and commuter rail, as the sentence says in plain English! And what wikilawyering? The sentence makes absolutely no reference to a single Wikipedia policy or guideline, which is what the term means. It is clearly and accurately, in easily understood plain English, saying that some authorities classify three distinct modes. I know English isn't your first language, but that is pretty darn straightforward. I have reverted your unnecessary removal. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The honorable editor should know that for the last 30 years, this editor supported himself and his family quite comfortably by writing in English, and managing many writers. If one of them would have written this, we would have a serious talk now, where I would recommend a career in writing mousetype. If this is where the article is going, then it's going down the tubes. BsBsBs (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with oknazevad that the intro is already crystal clear as it is - Metro, Light Rail and Commuter Rail as defined by our three reliable sources - UITP, USDT and APTA. What's the problem here? Massyparcer (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, I will point out, even BsBsBs' UITP reference actually defines what is basically commuter rail (though they categorize it as "Local rail systems..."), so even UITP defines all three modes separately. At this point, I don't know what else we can do to satisfy BsBsBs - I suspect he's implicitly pushing for a name change (to "List of international metropolitan heavy rail systems...", I would guess - a completely defensible position, I might add: a similar issue has been brought up in terms of the naming of the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership, suggesting that that should be renamed for similar reasons...), though I'm having difficulty telling if that is BsBsBs's aim or not... --IJBall (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitions compared
To move this discussion into a more productive area (something I think we can all agree upon,) I have assembled this table of definitions of terms that were heavily used in the article and the attendant discussion. They are from the definition chapters of the most cited sources, to wit:


 * UITP Recommended Basic Reference of 2011
 * US DOT Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database Glossary
 * American Public Transportation Association Fact Book Glossary

For those who are not familiar with these organizations, the UITP International Association of Public Transport is an international organization “for public transport authorities and operators, policy decision-makers, scientific institutes and the public transport supply and service industry.” The APTA is a national American Association. The FTA is an arm of the American government.

To state what should be obvious, but what is frequently overlooked: Of the three only the UITP defines “Metro.”

If we would apply dangerous reverse logic, then we could go further into other models of transport. To our great surprise, we would hear from the APTA:


 * “Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail)”

And


 * “Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail)”

We could be tempted to conclude that according to the APTA, a Metro can be both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail, especially when elsewhere in the world , and also in Passenger rail terminology, "Metro" and "Metropolitan rail" are used interchangeably. Which makes the issue more complicated than it already is. To make the confusion perfect, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, operator of the Berlin U-Bahn (or metro) now has "The 'MetroNetz' - a tram and bus-based core city network not to be confused with the underground system."

BsBsBs (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your list is misleading with strong signs of original research. APTA makes clear that heavy rail are also called metros. They make clear that heavy rail is an American term for metro - Not a separate system in existence. Commuter rails, on the other hand, are also called metropolitan rail according to APTA. Metropolitan rail and metros aren't the same thing. Treating them the same is very dangerous original research without any reliable source. And as you have correctly shown us - Commuter rails aren't defined by UITP, so we must use definitions from APTA and USDT to give a weighted consensus as I and other editors have said multiple times now. Massyparcer (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors will excuse me if I will ignore certain disruptive comments and commenters until sanity, civility, and rudimentary standards of logic return. In this case, a lack of opposition does not imply agreement. Wikipedia rules forbid a synthesis of published material, and I am on record that I oppose any such synthesis now and in the future.BsBsBs (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no synthesis of any source as you claim. Don't try to deny the truth. Clearly, you haven't read what I said above, only relying on that groundless synthesis claim instead of tackling the very genuine issues I and other editors have repeatedly raised. Your list above is showing signs of your own original research, which is not allowed on the very same Wiki rule you quote. I strongly oppose declaring blatant ignorance towards other editors simply because you don't like them on groundless claims of "uncivility" and "disruptiveness". Making very obvious indirect personal attacks is not constructive. I suggest you read WP:AGF first and make constructive contributions if you want to last as a responsible editor because deliberate hostilities towards other editors lead to burnouts fast. Real fast. Massyparcer (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to BsBsBS's new addition that he added after it was made clear that metros and metropolitan rail aren't the same, he's now quoting a Wikipedia article which uses terminology that have no sources, with a big verification needed sign on the top. He's also using marketing brands from Wellington, Melbourne and other system names to suggest that they're somehow the same - Which other editors have repeatedly made very clear are just that - Marketing brands. If they do not fit the official definitions from UIPT, APTA and USDT, they can't be included. He's trying to mislead the consensus by claiming that we're confused - When in reality, UIPT, APTA and USDT are making it extremely clear what is metro and not. We can't use marketing brands to categorize metros. Massyparcer (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm really glad that finally a more productive section has been opened. Bsbsbs, your opening of this section is very grateful. However, I don't think separation using Metro would help in this discussion. As we've discussed along, many countries each have distinct definitions. The only definition we could agree on would be physical components, such as # of people transported in an hour when the service has 100% congestion, size of metro cars (in volume) or more. Different organizations have so different definitions, and even in the resource you've provided, the resources don't provide definitions for all terms, leading to possible ambiguity among the terms (As lack of definitions of some terms would make the defining organizations to include that term in other predefined terms) And about the talk below (STATION) I think we should apply same standards here. My opinion is to count physically connected (that is, when passengers transfer, he doesn't need to go through free area - only passing thru paid areas) transfer stations as one, and others as two. I know it contradicts with almost all system admin's counting methods (as they would either count all transfer stations as one, or as multiples) However, this would be a better way to converge the counting criteria. So, for example, in Seoul system, Seoul station would be counted as 3 stations as there are 1+4 line station, GyeongUi station, and A'REX station. Noryangjin station would be counted as 2 stations for now, as there aren't any transfer way (but as one station soon after) 222.101.9.92 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page carpet bombing and other threats
An editor alleges that I “EXPLICITLY DELETED WHAT [the editor] POSTED''" (emphasis not mine.)

I did no such thing. I have been trying, to the extent humanly possible on this talk page, to ignore the editor and her incoherent ramblings, which have been contaminating this talk page for six weeks now. I would “CENSOR” (emphasis not mine) this verbal pollution no more than I would curate my neighbor’s septic tank.

What I had done was inform the editors that I had amended the inclusion criteria to the extent that “metros with separate operators are counted separately in this list.”

I then told Epicgenius to “keep digging.”

When I inserted my two comments, it was done with considerable trouble. Lately, is has become increasingly hard to insert a comment without getting an edit conflict. The cause appears to be the alleging editor herself. As the history shows this talk page has been taken over by one editor, who appears to edit with a B-52.

These are today's stats of this talk page, likely already severely outdated when you read it:

My edits were bracketed by Massyparcer’s carpet-bombing. Apparently, even the Wikipedia computer can no longer keep up with Massyparcer. If it appears that I removed any of the editor’s effluence, then she is wrong. If she continues her allegations, then I have no other choice than to ask for a formal investigation into this matter, as inane as this may be.

However, I also see that the editor is making threats. Apparently, in her study of the talk page guidelines she not only missed the part that frowns on continuous editing of one own's comments. She also did not see the part that says “Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.”

But anyway, having been threatened by an editor who already has considerable ANI experience, I better collect my material.BsBsBs (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: The server must have suffered collateral damage. After I inserted (ctr-v) this comment, it showed up twice with the same timestamp. BsBsBs (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good excuses. Just to let you know, I haven't mentioned any admins and I didn't threaten you and simply reminded you of a Wikipedia guideline. I would also refrain from making personal attacks and using very uncivil words claiming that I make "incoherent ramblings" and "verbal pollution" and that I "contaminated" this page. They show nothing but deliberate hostilities and that you clearly don't know even the basics of WP:Civility. Massyparcer (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"This is my final warning to BsBsBs: If your disruptive edits don't stop right here, we have no choice but to let the admins deal with your highly disruptive behaviour based on the very strong evidence above." . BsBsBs (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said let the admins deal with you - Not that I called out any specific admins I know. I hope you understand plain English here. Besides, you can't excuse yourself from the evidence when you have selectively deleted my sentence and not put it back to its original state. Massyparcer (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Trademark Massyparcer. I resume my previous posture and ignore her. Recommend same. BsBsBs (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I haven't mentioned any admins and I didn't threaten you" Massyparcer at 13:57.
 * "Yes, I said let the admins deal with you" Massyparcer at 14:48
 * Given the track record, I suggest that all edits of Massyparcer at the talk page get simply ignored. Their edits at the page may be reverted by anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling people to ignore me and Wikipedia guidelines which significantly erodes your credibility and neutrality as an admin. Massyparcer (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you literally asked to let admins to deal with you; admins are people too. is correct—your errant behavior and attitude on this page could be ignored (though I don't really care one way or another if your comments are deleted or not). Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC) (amended 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
 * You need to really re-read WP:AGF. Massyparcer (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What moves you to assume that I've already read WP:AGF? (Not that I haven't read it, of course.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary...Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others."

- WP:AGF Terramorphous (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)