Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 13

Metro system with the largest number of stations
The New York City Subway is the largest metro system in the world by number of stations. The listing for Seoul Metropolitan Subway, and the reference, is wrong. It should only count lines 1 through 9, as well as AREX and the Sin Bundang Line. Korail, the EverLine, and the U Line don't seem like part of the system, as they are commuter rail. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it can come as a shock for something to turn out not the way you have grown up to believe. But you need to be open minded about changes and we have already discussed your concern in extreme length in the sections above on this talk page. You can't remove a reliable, official source simply because you don't like it, and invent a new definition out of your head, which is a case of WP:OR. The source says that Korail's metropolitan subways are part of the system, but Everline and U Line are not and they are already excluded. See the official legal law from the operator of that system:

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport. We also have written confirmation from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT), the government arm of South Korea owning this system confirming the above if you need further evidence and proof. Massyparcer (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Something that I grew up to believe? I'm not that old, you know. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then I would like to apologize and I'm glad that you're open minded about changes. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, with the different methods that both metro systems use to count stations, we can't be sure which metro system has more stations. For example, the NYC Subway can have either 421/422 or 468/469 stations, depending on who you ask. So I'll drop this issue for now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. NYC and Seoul are counted identically. The article has a footnote on NYC and Seoul saying that it counts with transfer stations as one, which is also how all other metro systems' figure are derived. Massyparcer (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:

You need to delve deeper into the non-trivial matter.

At Seoul Metropolitan Subway, the statement "The Seoul Metropolitan Subway is the world's longest metro system and the largest metro by number of stations" has no in-line references. I suggest to ask there for a reliable secondary source that can be quoted as saying that "The Seoul Metropolitan Subway is the world's longest metro system and the largest metro by number of stations" (or words to that effect.)

The statement links twice to this list. Links to other WP articles are no replacement for a proper citation. If you think the statement is wrong, you can challenge it there,  you can ask for sources, and if there are none, the statement may be deleted.

As for the data presented here, you may want to check their references and ask for better ones if you find them insufficient. A routine check would go like this:


 * The in-line citation for "Stations" is note 48. Note 48 says: "Transfer stations counted as one. 585 in total." This is no source, it is an unreferenced claim. You want a source that says "The Seoul Metropolitan Subway has 493 stations."


 * The in-line citation for "System length" is note 49. Note 49 says:"Everline and U Line excluded. SeeTerms of Passenger Transport 제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다. Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다. Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail."

This is a lot of very impressive Korean, but no proof. You want a source that says "The Seoul Metropolitan Subway has a system length of 952 km" (or words to that effect.) The so-called reference also contains a link to a document. The document is hosted on the web server of the Incheon Transit Corporation, which does not appear to be the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. I cannot read the document because I a.) do not speak Korean, and b.) the document is in a file format that my computer does not understand. The note claims it is a document titled "Terms of transport." It is doubtful that a TOT doc is a valid source for a system length. It also does not purport to support the 952km system length. The entry can and should be challenged.

As customary at this list, the systems are listed by owner. If a city has a metro system that is made up by lines operated by many owners, then it will – at least on this list – lose to a city where all subways are owned by one entity. It therefore becomes – at least on this list – important that as many system as possible are owned by one entity. The Seoul note appears to suggest that "the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail" are to be understood as "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit." At this point, you do not know whether these subways are in fact owned by one "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit," or whether "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" is simply used as a catch-all term for all these subways. The latter would be a frequent occurrence in such legal texts. You may want to ask for amplification. You should also know that the Incheon Transit Corporation operates a website in the English language which would be a better source – if it in fact supports that claim.

As mentioned, the note does not support the 952km system length and hence can be seen as insufficient. If, as part of your challenge, you hear that someone added up the individual system lengths of the individual sections to arrive at a total, then this would raise immediate red flags that signal possible Original Research. Basically, Wikipedia forbids to "synthesize" facts from a source. It allows some simple “routine calculations.” This situation is everything but routine. If you ask an Original Research expert, you will probably hear that this is a borderline case, that to make it no WP:NOR, intensive footnotes would be needed that document the (cited) length of each system, preferably in a table. You may also hear that if this is questioned as WP:NOR, the citation should be replaced with one that directly supports the statement.

If someone tells you that they have written to a government entity, and that the government’s reply supports their claim, then this would be textbook Original Research if used in an WP article. The actual document would have to be cited in a verifiable way. If the document just sits in the other person’s drawer, it is not verifiable. Should the document somehow be made available, then you can challenge it as a “primary source”. Contrary to what the term suggests, “primary sources” are considered to be not good at WP. WP prefers secondary sources, i.e. books, scholarly texts, newspapers etc. that write about something. If the government entity would publish the statement, for instance on their website, then this would probably be accepted. A private letter usually always attracts, if unpublished, accusations of Original Research and/or of being a primary source.

All of the above will take a lot of time, and by doing so, you will most likely take a lot of abuse. Keep your cool and your facts together.

This is all the advice I can give you at this moment.BsBsBs (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will try asking on talk:Seoul Metropolitan Subway. I'm not sure if I'll get a response there, though. Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you need any help, ask. Or as we said when I was young: "Question authority."BsBsBs (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And, again, I'll reiterate - if someone can put together a table in which the various components of Seoul's metropolitan rapid transit network is split out by owner/operator (it'd help if that table also had system lengths and number of stations), then I will go ahead an split Seoul up. I will also reiterate, again, that even the old consensus on Seoul was unsatisfactory to at least this editor, as I'm pretty sure the Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9) were bundled with two other lines that I don't think were owned by the same entity that owns the Seoul Subway.
 * And, in anticipation of Massyparcer, et al. I think it is perfectly reasonable to attach a unified 'Note' to each of these Seoul systems, noting that Seoul's system can be considered the longest (with system length and number of stations included) if all of these systems are bundled together and combined into one "rapid transit network". This is only the very reasonable compromise on this issue that I've been offering since Day One, but have been continually shouted down on it by Massyparcer, et al... --IJBall (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be a wise solution, and I recommend it. It is hard to understand that it was shouted down. BsBsBs (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@BsBsBs, I suggest you take your time and read what everybody have been discussing on Seoul first. For a starter, this article clearly says that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway is one of the world's largest metro systems by length and number of stations. It has never said what system it is the longest, which was derived from a consensus with IJBall.

I have to revive an older message I posted here to deal with BsBsBs's groundless claim that there is no reliable secondary source: We have full evidence from Railwaytechnology.com, which was founded back in 1997 as a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" quoted from their website, which clearly states that  Source: Railwaytechnology.comThis external English source fully agrees with the Korean government and official operator's definitions. Here we have another full evidence from a highly reliable source (not some fan site or forum like which uses one author or writer's personal opinion) that has been specializing as a railway reference resource for professionals and decision makers for over 16 years. These experts clearly know the systems around the world very well, given their list is extremely up-to-date even to the opening of Everline in 2013. I see absolutely zero reason why this statement isn't valid given that our consensus is fully agreed by the Korean government who founded and built this subway, by its official operator, by an external railway reference resource for professionals and decision makers, and by every international and American laws.

I will put that source up on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article. BsBsBs, you should deal issues what's on this article - Not cite a different article and mislead others to think that it's an issue here.

For the station count, this is routine calculation as per Wikipedia guidelines. There's no problem with adding up station or track counts, which is done by all other metro systems here. If you have a problem with this, you better start questioning all other metro systems that do the same, which were clearly never questioned because it is simply adding up numbers which is allowed as per WP:NOR.

Also I would suggest editors to stop being lazy and complain about being unable to read .hwp and download a reader when it is South Korea's most popular document format used by every government body - They don't use Microsoft Word over there, I'm afraid. And if you can read English, you can read the translations.

Incheon Transit is an operator of a line that is part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, which they define directly on their operation laws. You can't get more accurate than that. You're clearly not following the discussion. We have made clear that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT), the government arm of South Korea, funded and owns this system. So we're not going against any traditions here, including listing them by owners that IJ has proposed. Massyparcer (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@IJBall: I have told you before that there is only one owner of this system. Which is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). So any discussion about split is going against what's going on in the real world here. List of operators can be found on the article and by now, I think you know who they are. Again, that "old consensus" was based on a flawed compromise that was unsourced original research, unfortunately. I'm sure you have read WP:OR. You can't put a note on so-called "systems" if there is only one system to begin with. The government's map consistently puts them under the definition of "metro" on their maps: http://www.tago.go.kr/subway/seoulLinemap.jsp and lists all metro stations here: http://www.tago.go.kr/subway/seoulSubwayStationList.jsp which is in line with this article's count. I know that you're a good-faithed editor, so I would advise you to follow what the sources say, not making up an original research to split them, for which you don't have a source, I'm afraid. Massyparcer (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And there's another reference, up-page, from BBC, that lists Shanghai as the "world's longest metro". I'm actually willing to support both claims (with references), if you would just accept the compromise I just outlined.
 * As for your Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT), I don't know enough Korean law to comment, but I suspect it is more like "the controlling legal authority" rather than the "owner", which would be a significant difference, if I'm correct... --IJBall (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why we have agreed to not claim any system to be the longest as this is highly contentious and ultimately liable to original research from outside writers who can be highly unreliable. As we have seen with news journalists and media reporters, the BBC is not a rail expert unlike the source I quoted which are for rail experts and professionals and hence non-rail experts like BBC can't be considered reliable. You're again too relying on Terramorphous' misleading and unsourced claim about a different government agency that I quoted earlier on. As MinSik CHO will no doubt agree with me, MOLIT is the highest government arm in South Korea that funds and owns all public road, rail, metro and other transportation systems: MOLIT The Seoul Metropolitan Subway's owner is simple - It's the Korean government. There are different operators that run one system. Massyparcer (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'll take some free advice, Massyparcer - the thing most damaging to your credibility is your instance that "some references are unreliable". In most cases, a reference is a reference - there are very few cases where a reference is totally invalid. If you don't like what one reference says, you can find another (as you did with Railway Age) that says something else. But you can't willy-nilly say, "Oh, I don't like what this reference says. Therefore it's 'unreliable'." That's not how Wikipedia (or academia or journalism, for that matter) works... --IJBall (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Advice taken. But allow me to point that under WP:Verifiability, there are questionable sources out there for which we should always keep an eye out. Massyparcer (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:

Simple advice: Don’t believe anything except the facts you have checked yourself, twice.

Seoul Metropolitan Subway says: “The Seoul Metropolitan Subway is the world's longest metro system and the largest metro by number of stations. (Emphasis mine.) It does not say “one of the world’s.” It makes the claim that it has is the longest and largest by referring to this article. You may want to check that article’s history to see who made and defended that claim.

List of metro systems says “The Seoul Metropolitan Subway is one of the world's largest metro systems by length and number of stations.” It does so in the caption of a picture, not in the most prominent place. This article has a sort button. With the help of this sort button, this list communicates that Seoul is the world’s largest. You can communicate a lot without words. With pictures, hand signals, or sort buttons.

If Railway-Technology.com says “Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world,” and it appears it does, then this may be cited in a Wikipedia article. If other notable sources come to a different conclusion, then WP recommends to cite all, as in “Railway-Technology.com says that the Seoul subway is the longest subway system in the world,” whereas Source B says ….”

If the same editor who uses this quote in Wikipedia to prove that Seoul has the longest subway system in the world, claims on this list that the respective Seoul subways systems must all be treated as one according to this list's customs, then this editor would open him or herself up to vehement criticism.

After all, Railway-Technology continues to say: “The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators.” (Emphasis mine.)

You can’t say “Seoul subway is the longest” and use a quote from a source that utterly contradicts you when you, in an other article, claim that all Seoul subways are owned and operated by one entity, which is, well, the government, somehow. Sure, you can, but if you do, you should be told to get packing. Or you should start editing many cities where the individual independent operators are owned by the government, somehow. Both Tokyo subways for instance, possibly including the JR. The U-Bahn S-Bahn networks of German cities (owned by the government, somehow.) Keep digging, and you will find a government.

Ooops, someone just added the Railway-Technology citation to a Wikipedia article that now reads as if it was written by the Seoul Chamber of Commerce.

PS: It always has been my strictly personal opinion that a city's metros should all be counted as part of the big metro SYSTEM they are. This, however, is not how it is done around here, and we either do it, or we don't.

BsBsBs (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But doing it as you suggest in your P.S. would mean that Berlin's U-Bahn and S-Bahn would be bundled together, that all of NYC's subways, etc. would be bundled together, that all of Tokyo's systems would be bundled together, etc. - does anyone think that would be a preferable situation to what the list does now, or would provide better clarity?! (I definitely don't...)
 * If the title of this list was "List of metropolitan rapid transit networks" (emphasis mine), then I'd agree that's how we'd have to do it. But that's not what the (current) title of this list is... --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignore my PS. I said this is my strictly private opinion, and I said it just in case someone who doesn't know the difference says I contradict myself. If this list counts them as separate, then they have to be separate, and I will defend this principle.BsBsBs (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We should, however, go over to Total rapid transit systems statistics by country and tell them them to stop using data from this list to construe that the sum of cities as per this list represents the total of the rapid transit systems of a country. Wrong and wrong. An AFD due to massive OR probably would be the most charitable solution.BsBsBs (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the Seoul Metropolitan Subway page, with Massyparcer's help, is now grossly mis-titled: that page, in fact, no longer refers to the subway section really at all - at least, not as the distinct "subway portion" only (that's just Lines 1-9) as a page with that title should, but now refers to Seoul's entire rapid transit network . If I knew more about Seoul's specifics, I would have tried to help that page out before it got to this state, but... [shrug] --IJBall (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @BsBsBs I hope you don't make me repeat this again: Referring to a different article and claiming as if it was stated here is misleading and questions your objectiveness. Besides, that very article you quote no longer makes that "claim" because it is fully sourced now.


 * If you have read my discussions with IJBall, you will know that we have decided not to call any system "the world's longest", which is highly contentious and ultimately leads to edit wars and unnecessary fights, which is not what we want at all here. We need to keep this article neutral and allow it to fulfill its simple purpose of listing metro systems.


 * First of all, I would question this "custom" if I were you, which you have so vehemently done so far. This "custom" has absolutely no sources and would actually be original research. WP:NOR tells us that we can't have original research here (which you so vehemently argued for all the time) and that we must list any metro systems by the sources. In this case, the official operator, Korean government, the external source and our previous consensus makes clear that there is only one Seoul Metropolitan Subway. If I were you, I would refrain from making groundless claims that the source "utterly contradicts" me. Let's not make blatant lies here, BsBsBs. Behave civil. Sounds like you haven't read my reply to IJBall above, where I have clearly said that "there are different operators that run one system". It also seems you're confused about operators and owners, which aren't the same. Yes, Toko Metro and Toei are owned by the Japanese government - But are they sourced by the operators to be a single system? No. Any unsourced material may be challenged. None of the systems you mention above have a source proving that they're a single system. If there are multiple operators, you must have a source from the official operator that verifies that there is a single system. I can't emphasize this enough - Only references from the official sources define a metro system. We have no right to add or split any system here without a source.


 * @IJBall, the title of that article was discussed in extreme lengths previously and I would appreciate if you would head over their talk page to read about the consensus. The word "subway" is an synonymous term in Korea referring to any metro and is the official name used by Seoul Metro and SMRT. This was discussed before with Terramorphous. IJBall, you're pulling out everything that Terramorphous did again, which was already dealt with in the discussions before. I know you won't trust me and would prefer to listen to the opinions of Terramorphous but you have to question whether any of that was sourced. The statement you just made that "just Lines 1-9" are subway just shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of Seoul's subway system. Line 1 and 4 are mostly overground, Bundang Line is almost completely underground and Sinbundang Line is completely underground. The entire rapid transit network has always been called a subway officially here, which will be strange to an American, where it has a different meaning to the one you use over in America, which only refers to the underground portion there, I suspect. IJBall, I don't see why you're bringing up stuff again that we already discussed in extreme lengths with multiple reliable sources. If you have a problem with the name of Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article, then I suggest you go over to their talk page and complain. Massyparcer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified as part of the required inclusion/exclusion criteria that metros with separate operators are counted separately in this list, as it appears to be the consensus, as documented by the list itself. I also issued the caveat that the list entries may not reflect the total rapid transit system of a city, that the sum of the entries on this list not necessarily will reflect the total of all rapid transit systems of a country, and that the content of this list should not be used to establish a ranking. Before editors argue that this is OR, a reading of what WP demands from a list is recommended. Links provided above.BsBsBs (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , The claim for the SMS being the longest metro system was there long before Massyparcer made their 100+ edits to the article. They changed around some figures that made the SMS magically gain over 200 km of route miles within less than an hour. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep digging! BsBsBs (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's see. Oh yes, this... "The New York City subway has 468 stations serving 24 subway lines - more than any other system in the world. Routes are identified by letters, such as    icon or numbers, such as    etc. These routes serve Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. The Staten Island Railway (SIR) serves Staten Island.  Ask for a free subway map  at subway station booths, or view it online." See, NYC Subway does have the largest number of stations in the world, and the official website admits it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me channel BsBsBs here for a minute just to offer up a general comment (as it also applies to Massyparcer's Seoul references): Primary sources, like yours from NYC's MTA above, are a double-edged sword: on the one hand, no one is going to know that stats for a system better than the owner/operator (which is why I nearly always try to go to them, when I look for referencing for 'system stats' like System length). On the other hand, references from the owner/operator are also likely to fall prey to sometimes factually inaccurate "boosterism" about their systems. In other words, NYC's MTA may claim that they have the most stations in the world, and Korean sources may claim that Seoul's metro is the longest in the world. But, without a secondary source to back claims like this up, I definitely would take them with a grain of salt, to the point where I'm not sure I'd even quote such a claim in this article's text unless it had more references than just the primary source. That is why, for example, Massyparcer is dead wrong to dismiss sources like BBC (which is a secondary source) in favor of Korean sources (which would be primary sources), as the latter may have a stake in "inflating" or "obfuscating" their figures for various reasons... --IJBall (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the quote, "The New York City subway has 468 stations serving 24 subway lines - more than any other system in the world..." It's unclear to me if the second part refers to the number of stations, the number of subway "lines", or both. It's possible it's referring to NYC's subway having more "lines" than any other system in the world, a claim that is very probably true (right now). --IJBall (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The "24 subway lines" claim is false—it's actually 34 lines, or so it seems... Epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to seriously challenge IJBall's claim that there are "boosterism" in primary sources and hence they are "double-edged swords" as he likes to claim, when you're quoting a Wikipedia article that clearly says "Do not praise an academic institution", which is intended for university graduates overpraising their schools, and has nothing to do with the sources we're dealing with here. You're making groundless claims that they are "inflating" or "obfuscating", which is blatant original research invented out of the air and going literally in a collision course against WP:Verifiability. Clearly, you're using those primary sources yourself with other metro systems and only shunning Seoul's sources as being "inflated" is nonsense that seriously dents your neutrality as an editor here as per WP:NPOV. We clearly have Railway-technology, a highly reliable secondary source that is written by rail experts and professionals unlike the BBC, backing up the official operator's "claim" literally directly worded right off the bat, so I don't see where you're trying to go here. Also, I have compared the BBC with Railwaytechnology.com and not with the Korean sources, so I don't see why you're trying to mislead other editors with your groundless claim that I dismissed the BBC which was "dead wrong" here with false facts. I haven't even compared them with the Korean sources, let alone favoring them. You're seriously denting your credibility as a decent editor here. Massyparcer (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@IJBall Exactly, this is the reason I didn't flood the talk page with links citing Shanghai as the longest system in the world even though both western and Chinese state media reported it to be so. Even published sources can have a certain POV should be taken with a grain of salt. @Epicgenius Yes, all of Massyparcer's edits have been on this page and the Seoul Metro's constellation and companion pages to support his claims. Note that the Jungang Line is mysteriously edited to be a +300km long subway, intercity passenger and freight line. In addition Gyeongchun Line went from commuter rail to being rapid transit. The end result? The Seoul Metro magically gets bigger and bigger literally by the month.Terramorphous (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it either. The SMS, as it stands now, reads like it covers the entire northwest of South Korea. It's like grouping the number of stations of the AirTrain JFK, Staten Island Railway, AirTrain Newark, and Port Authority Trans-Hudson, combined, with the number of New York City Subway stations, then adding these numbers up. The number really doesn't make much sense, to think about it. Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We may not like it and it may not make sense but we do what the sources say at Wikipedia. I know it is hard to believe the reality when you face it. We have an instinct to deny the truth because of our free will and grab anything from original research to personal attacks to deny that, which is exactly what's happening right now. But that's not how it works in an encyclopedia, which should only reflect the truth. This article is a prime example just showing how much blatant original research has been going on.


 * @Terramorphous, making groundless and misleading claims questions your objectiveness and seriously undermines your credibility and neutrality as an editor. If you're a good-faithed editor, you will know that only the rapid transit section of Junang Line is counted on this article. Stop generating groundless claims. Gyeongchun was a rapid transit since 2010 because it fits the rapid transit definition of UITP, USDT and APTA. The three sources say nothing about track sharing being a knock-out criterion. If you have a problem with this, I ask Terra to go and deal with Munich S-Bahn first which is a textbook example of this, almost completely track sharing with all sorts of other traffic that BsBsBs has vehemently argued for. And many other systems here that do the same. If you can prove that this knock-out citeria exist through their sources, we can go ahead and use your original research - But that's not the case here Terramorphous. I suggest you read WP:OR first.


 * @Epicgenius: The thing is that we don't have an official source confirming that AirTrain JFK or PATH are part of the NYC Subway system. They just don't say it, which is why we don't list it that way. If you can show us an official operator's source that proves they're one system, I'm happy to consider listing them as such. Seoul's operator defines in their legal law that they are part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway system, where we have full evidence and proof that it is one system. Wiki is source based - Not original research based.


 * And may I kindly remind editors to go to the appropriate articles' talk pages and make their complains in the appropriate talk pages. Because this isn't some forum for general complains about Seoul. You should focus on sources and policies in this talk page as per Talk page guidelines. Massyparcer (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So I see you're citing the official website as a source. Seoul can claim everything it wants, but without reliable secondary sources to back it up, the claim has little merit.
 * And by the way, please use the preview button before saving. You're making three or four consecutive edits every time you post here. Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Three or four? More like thirty or forty. More than 100 today. See below. BsBsBs (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you haven't read that reliable secondary source to back it up that I posted multiple times here already: "We have full evidence from Railwaytechnology.com, which was founded back in 1997 as a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" quoted from their website, which clearly states that"  Source: Railwaytechnology.com Massyparcer (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting, how under "New York Subway" on the same page, it says, "The subway system is operated with 24 lines and 468 stations, and is currently touted as having more stations than any other metro system ". So, the secondary source you cited doesn't support the facts you give. Therefore, the Seoul claim is dubious. Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It says it is touted, not that it actually is. Besides, that is irrelevant synthesis because we're talking about defining Seoul's system here., not NYC. Massyparcer (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're not talking about either. We are discussing which system has more stations. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read IJBall's reply to you, you will see that no source really qualifies to claim a system the largest by station counts or any of that sort. It's highly contentious and sources' opinions differ which will only cause unnecessary edit wars and fights, which is why I have agreed with IJ to not claim any system the longest, largest or whatever. Massyparcer (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source is still unreliable. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is not true given that these are experts who have since 1997 been a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from the source. Massyparcer (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not this source (which happens to be unreliable anyway because it's basically a forum)—the official website is unreliable. Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's basically a forum? What are you talking about?? The source that I quoted was an article officialy written by the experts of that source. As IJBall said, you need to stop dismissing sources just because you don't like it/think it's unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, albeit a forum of experts. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @IJBall: At this point, I have to seriously challenge this claim that "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies. ", originally invented and written by BsBsBs clearly as a knock-out criteria for Seoul in an attempt to desperately knock it out because he clearly has a personal issue with me, the very editor who tried to CENSOR me for revealing that he has a two-faced stance on WP:OR, now IJBall is supporting this based on groundless claims that "it's a DEFINING characteristic of *this* list" - What are you talking about? Just because it's a "tradition" and "custom" to list systems here does't mean it's valid. You're going completely against what we have been doing here - Which is removing all unsourced OR claims. The sources that are attached to these metro systems are more than enough proof of their systems and that invented criteria is clearly a very deliberate and discriminating original research, which is a significant breach of WP:OR, a Wiki rule that applies exactly the same to lists and the criteria we set. By ignoring WP:OR, you're significantly eroding your credibility as a neutral good-faithed editor. If you still want to use this original research though, the only reasonable compromise I can think of is to include an exclusion part which lists a system as the official sources say so. Because if we don't, this rule will not work as intended and utterly fail to reflect what's going on in the real world. Remember: An originally researched parameter invented out of "tradition" and "custom" can't override what the official source defines, which looks like nothing but a full collision course against WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Massyparcer (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the part where it says "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." I removed the part that added "except where the official operator's source defines otherwise." Reasons:

BsBsBs (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This explicitly asks for primary sources. Very much discouraged.
 * We will not write a giant loophole just for one city
 * A small ad with the headline "Many operators, one system, one city" ((c)BsBsBs) would suffice to be listed,

Loophole? It's a huge irony that this is coming from an editor who is vehemently arguing against OR, yet he is supporting and inventing a very discriminating and intentional original research that has no sources to backup. As inadvisable as it may be, if you still want to use this original research with a compromise, I suggest you leave that statement alone because it explicitly asks for a reliable, official primary and secondary sources which WP:NOR has no problems with and is actually used by many metro systems here including Munich S-Bahn and Shanghai Metro as valid references. You better start questioning their primary sources first instead of acting two-faced here on WP:OR. I have to make this clear again: An originally researched parameter invented out of "tradition" and "custom" can't override what the official source defines, which looks like nothing but a full collision course against WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Either we remove this blatant original research altogether or we list it as you want but when the sources say otherwise, they must be listed as the sources because this OR's loophole would obviously utterly fail at reflecting what's going in the real world. Massyparcer (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Actually masseypacer's count for Seoul is like lumping the AirTrain JFK, Staten Island Railway, AirTrain Newark, Port Authority Trans-Hudson, combined, with the number of New York City Subway. But also adding the frequent, grade separated metro-like sections of New Jersey Transit, Metro-North Railroad, and Long Island Rail Road. Which allows Seoul to get a number that is twice as big as the next system down. Seoul was called the world's longest after me, Ymblanter, and oknazevad and some other editors struck a comprise last year. Before the compromise the Seoul's count was only the metro sections of Lines 1-9. A user by the name of Duesride proposed adding 200km of lines to the count. After debate and compromise only 100km was added, making it the "new" longest, by counting of new lines not by any new construction. To be blunt here, the only reason the final compromise was made is the fact that Duesride was banned for sock puppetry and aggressive South Korean POV pushing and is MIA. If that never happened I think we would still be arguing on Seoul with him today. The key quote from that compromise is:

"I'd be wary of declaring the Seoul system the longest in the world without at least one source stating such. Yes, the calculation of the total length from adding the individual lines is a simple calculation, the sort that doesn't constitute original research, but unless someone else makes the statement, we don't really know if the definition of what constitutes the Seoul system is a widely accepted one, and therefore not purely made up."

- oknazevad

So far we have yet to find a set of reliable sources written before 2013 to back the claim. In late 2013 Shanghai opened a lot of new subway allowing it to surpass Seoul's "new" number and the rest of the story is on this page. Honestly, it is really ridiculous that Seoul's count is growing so quickly even though most of the additional length is not new construction.


 * Which just brings Shanghai into the fray. And Beijing. And, to a point, London. The first two metro systems (Shanghai and Beijing) are expanding at enormous rates; the third metro system (London) expands far beyond the reaches of London due to its sharing track with London Overground, which brings up other questions as well. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@BsBsBs Not a loop hole, every standard practice on this list is blatantly ignored by Seoul's count.Terramorphous (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just a loophole - This is a blatant textbook example of breaching WP:OR. As for Terra, I think you need to stop making unsourced claims. The NYC commuter rails use specific station to station fares which is defined by APTA/USDT's definition. None of the lines listed in Seoul's system use any of that. Also, we don't have a primary and secondary source from NYC confirming that the above are a single system. So it's not the same thing.I looked into that "old consensus", which was seriously flawed and full of original research. You define by the source and as BsBsBs has pointed out, consensus cannot override the source. It doesn't matter whether Shanghai opened new lines because it's still way smaller than Seoul's system. But the point is I'm vehemently against in fighting over who's the longest or largest by station count. It's silly and it's what kids like to do. Pointless things that only stir up unnecessary edit wars and fights. At the end of the day, as I agree with IJBall, this is so contentious that we do not have a right to call anything the largest or longest. We simply list them here as the sources say. That's it. WP:Consensus makes clear that any new addition (this original research was added by BsBsBs yesterday) that is challenged should be reverted and discussed first. We must follow Wikipedia procedures and stop playing the revert game.."In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" Massyparcer (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul Subway length
Okay, now that we've nearly ended the discussion about whether NYC's or Seoul's subways are the largest in number of stations, can someone check which lines the Seoul Subway really controls/operates? The sources seem doubtful, IMHO. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy if there would be cites for their listed line length and stations. As I wrote you before, the dear reader is left hanging. It is clear that these lines are separate entities, and according to prevailing list rules, they are counted separately. Whether they are owned by the government, somehow, just like many other metros, does not matter. If we want to change this, then we can talk about it, If and when we agree, we change it. Then, not now. For the whole list, not one city selectively. We will have to go through the list and rearrange the deck chairs. No decision, no change. Please continue ignoring voices that change direction faster than the wind, and that are for solutions which (they think) helps their city, and which (they think) keep others out. We've rehashed this long enough. Time to go forward and do productive editing. Let's start with the basics: Reliable sources for each number.  BsBsBs (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at the official operator's source and the reliable secondary source we have, you would know what it controls and operates. This is standard practice we have done for all other metro systems. As IJBall said, you need to stop dismissing a reliable source just because you don't think it's reliable. Quote from IJBall: "You can't willy-nilly say, "Oh, I don't like what this reference says. Therefore it's 'unreliable'." That's not how Wikipedia (or academia or journalism, for that matter) works... " Just a free advice - It would be a good idea to go over to Seoul Metropolitan Subway and post it in their talk page, because this is about discussing matters related to List of metro systems. But if you need more sources, here is the one from Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit: http://www.smrt.co.kr/program/Eng/Subway/Train/Station_select.jsp?main=Y&lang=e And a more visual one if you need: http://www.smrt.co.kr/program/cyberStation/main2.jsp?lang=e Massyparcer (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about SMRT, Seoul Metro, Korail, NeoTrans, or a combination of all of the operators? Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They're all operators of one system, as our source from SMRT above shows. These are the operators of the system, as we have from our sources' definitions:

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport.

Source: Railwaytechnology.com Massyparcer (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They are still all different companies that operate different lines, which are advertised to the public as one system, however, we do not know if that is technically true. Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We now know that it is technically true because the sources above confirm that. Our sources prove that they are both marketed and exist as a single metro system. Also, they're not really companies but state-owned. Massyparcer (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Veolia and NeoTrans aren't state owned.Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Veolia and NeoTrans are the operators contracted by the owner. Massyparcer (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, so is MTA, but are they state-owned? Not really. Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Let's figure the owner/operator for each segment, split Seoul as is done for every other city's system on the list, include the 'Note' (with the Railway Age reference) for the Ko.-boosters, and get on with it. (Then we can get back to the more typical fighting off the HKG nationalists like I'm having to do currently on the List of tram and light rail transit systems...) --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Splitting that system is a classic textbook example breach of WP:NOR going against the sources above. Nobody is interested in boosting anything here - All we want is this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. And I think you forgot to read what I said before: At this point, I have to seriously challenge this claim that "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies. ", originally invented and written by BsBsBs clearly as a knock-out criteria for Seoul in an attempt to desperately knock it out because he clearly has a personal issue with me, the very editor who tried to CENSOR me for revealing that he has a two-faced stance on WP:OR, now IJBall is supporting this based on groundless claims that "it's a DEFINING characteristic of *this* list" - What are you talking about? Just because it's a "tradition" and "custom" to list systems here does't mean it's valid. You're going completely against what we have been doing here - Which is removing all unsourced OR claims. The sources that are attached to these metro systems are more than enough proof of their systems and that invented criteria is clearly a very deliberate and discriminating original research, which is a significant breach of WP:OR, a Wiki rule that applies exactly the same to lists and the criteria we set. By ignoring WP:OR, you're significantly eroding your credibility as a neutral good-faithed editor. If you still want to use this original research though, the only reasonable compromise I can think of is to include an exclusion part which lists a system as the official sources say so. Because if we don't, this rule will not work as intended and utterly fail to reflect what's going on in the real world. Remember: An originally researched parameter invented out of "tradition" and "custom" can't override what the official source defines, which looks like nothing but a full collision course against WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Massyparcer (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your repeated refusal to even consider my reasonable proposed compromise I think exposes your real agenda here - the Korean systems would still be 'Noted' exactly the way you think they should be, and yet you still refuse.
 * Let me be clear here - the real issue is that nobody on here except you can even read the Korean references so we are having to rely on you to tell us what is in them. This is a real problem because, right now, it looks like your credibility with the other editors on this page is at about zero, and none of us are comfortable taking your "word" on what those references really say. (And this isn't even getting into the separate primary sources vs. secondary sources issue I noted earlier...) Suffice it to say, outside of Railway Age (which explicitly notes Seoul is operated by multiple different agencies, which is a point in favor of the way the rest of us want to organize this very list), you have produced no non-Korean sources for your claim that "the Korean federal government "owns" Seoul's network", so at this point you don't have enough to support your position. Your sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "No original research!!" over and over again does nothing to change that... --IJBall (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the biggest thing that is denting credibility is questioning my motives all the time. What is consensus? makes this very clear - "Don't question the other party's motive". So your consensus achieving process is totally flawed here to start with.

You're completely going against the sources above, and trying to split them at your will which is something we will never accept at Wikipedia because it is an outright violation of WP:NOR. It's like trying to hide the sky with your hands. You can't deny the truth.

Just because you and the others want to sort it that way, doesn't mean you can override the sources. And if you can't read Korean, then why aren't you questioning the sources that are in Chinese, German or whatever with no translations? Such immense bias and shunning on Seoul only just completely erodes your credibility as a neutral editor and is going completely against WP:NPOV. The message from the source isn't difficult stuff - They just simply list the operators that you can translate through Google. If there was anything wrong, Min Sik CHO and other Korean editors would have already pointed that out.

I made a very reasonable offer of compromise which you ignored where we allow everything to be sorted the way you want despite being a groundless original research and make an exception for the systems where their sources define differently. Because otherwise, your way of doing things will not properly reflect what's going on in the real world. An encyclopedia failing to reflect the real world is utterly useless. Massyparcer (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And we have an ANI
Six weeks an editor, second ANI This needs everybody's attention here.BsBsBs (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let him - I don't think this one will get any further than his first one against me did... --IJBall (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And shut down by ANI, he's now moved on to the WP:OR noticeboard... --IJBall (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone is very dedicated. After the ANI went nowhere, and the WP:OR noticeboard ignored him, now there is a dispute resolution. What's next, ArbCom? BsBsBs (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect you can summarize this situation better than I can, so I'm going to wait to see what you say before I respond over there... --IJBall (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Please do not continue your dispute with the account on this page. Respect for the Dispute Resolution Panel demands that the proceedings should be allowed to run their course without further distraction, or interference. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, noted. Did not realize that was part of the process. Will now refrain from further contact with Massyparcer until this is resolved. --IJBall (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Case closed yet again. We need to spend our time on productive work, time these frivolous proceedings obviously absorb. To protect us from further specious accusations, please do no longer react to the user's comments. Unless editors decide otherwise, talk comments of this user will be folded.BsBsBs (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)



There is one thing we should learn from this: If you make a DRN where your talk page carpet bombing will come up, don't carpet bomb the DRN with 22 edits. I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. Please act accordingly. Discussions are obviously useless. Don't feed the trolls.BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, this editor carpet-bombed many pages that they posted to recently: 11 edits to NOR/N, 7 to ANI, and 22 to DRN, plus over 900 edits to this page alone. Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, this editor carpet-bombed many pages that they posted to recently: 11 edits to NOR/N, 7 to ANI, and 22 to DRN, plus over 900 edits to this page alone. Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators
As the title of this article says - This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. Operators and systems aren't the same. This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. Editors are currently listing them by operators, which is going against the purpose of this article. For example, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is defined by the official operators (which are in Korean, so editors are shunning these based on language barriers) and a reliable secondary source in English to be a single system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws: Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro, Identical definition from SMRT's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit and Sinbundang Line's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, DX Line Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit. Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Korail Airport Railroad. I also brought this reliable secondary source, which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website: Source: Railwaytechnology.com I have highlighted system in bold.

The editors' claim that it is a "tradition" and "custom" to list them by operators is clearly wrong and can't override the purpose of this article, which is to list metro by systems, not operators. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They are clearly different systems. Incheon and Seoul, for instance, are different metro systems where there are transfers at a couple of stations. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the consensus way we define "system" on this list. Period. What you want us to do is list metro networks - "networks" are made up of multiple "systems". Again, you've lost this fight. We're still going to include the 'Note' counting Seoul the way you want it, so it would behoove you to be gracious at this point, rather than beating this dead horse. --IJBall (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: See legal law and definition from Seoul Metro above. Massyparcer (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC) @IJBall: This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro networks. Also the two words are synonymous so you're basically agreeing with me here:. Inappropriate consensus cannot override the purpose of this article. Full stop. This has never been about a fight but reflecting the truth that's going in the real world, which is what Wikipedia stands for. Massyparcer (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's "your truth" versus the truth as everyone else sees it. How many more Wiki arbitration boards are you going to lose on before you stop tilting at windmills?... Bottom line: You aren't going to win this now pointless fight - it's time to move on. --IJBall (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the sources' truth as proved by evidence, not about what I say. That "truth" that you claim is from a group of very biased editors that violated WP:NPOV multiple times and clearly have a personal issue with me by using personal attacks, rude words and questioning my motives all the time, which shouldn't be a part of consensus gathering. Again, stop talking about my behavior and discuss the dispute meaningfully if you are a good-faithed editor. Massyparcer (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Operation Spring Cleaning
I am a member of WP:Cleanup, and brought my broom. Now that (AFAIK) all editors agree that the Seoul Metros have separate operators, I started to bring the entry in accordance with the requirement. It took work, the result is suboptimal, and it illustrates some big problems that were masked while bunching all Seoul metros together.

In pulling the metros apart, I did what the notes asked the reader to do. I went to the referenced Wikipedia pages and looked for the numbers I need. The numbers are in the list. When line lengths were not added up in the WP page, the number received no entry.

Then, as the attempt of a compromise, I created a city total, based on the numbers I found. I checked with OR experts. They say it is OK to build a total, if it is accompanied by a table that makes clear how and from which sources the data were derived. No table, OR.

The result clearly is not according to WP standards. There is a lot of work to be done. The numbers need to be checked, most of all, they need in-line citations. They have none, because the specified WP pages have none. People who know the Korean lines better, please find the sources. Without the refs, the entries can (and will) be deleted. Should the new table get reverted, then the whole Seoul Metro entry must (and will) be deleted. It has no reference. The numbers seem to be pulled from thin air.


 * Does anybody know how to put a thick border around a City like Seoul, Hamburg etc?


 * Does anybody know how to make the totals calculate automatically?

BsBsBs (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like this?


 * Epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Will try! And can you help me avoid that " Normal 0          false  false  false    EN-US  X-NONE  X-NONE" gets inserted when I paste from Word?BsBsBs (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. My self-assigned project last fall was to try to get references for as many of the systems' stats as possible. (I've since been kept too busy at work to put time into it - I'll try to get back to it in the Summer...) But I was probably going to skip attempting that with the Asian systems. Why? - Back to the language barrier... So I doubt I can be of help getting these references. Sorry. --IJBall (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Pls help me. Draw a heavy black border around all of Seoul, including total. Can you bold total? My hero!BsBsBs (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is looking good, except for the "Total" row - that will need to be deleted (and eventually folded in to a 'Note'). Also, I wouldn't put a "heavy" border around that, unless it's just a temporary measure. But so far so good... --IJBall (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which table? Here, or at the SMS article?Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SMS article, please. It's a start. The most important part are the cites. Details later. BsBsBs (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant THIS article, damn acronyms. Sorry. BsBsBs (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also ✅ Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thick border around all of Seoul? If too hard, drop it. Will buy you a beverage of your choice when in Manhattan. (Former 4/5/6 straphanger.) BsBsBs (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be split by owners not operators. Seoul Lines 1-9 is owned by the city of Seoul. The Korail lines are owned by the national government. The Incheon Metro is owned by the Incheon City. In addition, I would like to point out that most of the Seoul Korail network is not metro. Only the Korail Suin, Ilsan, Anshan, and Bundang Lines are rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but first things first: let's implement the 'split' first, and then we can look at each entry individually to figure out which (parts) meet the "metro" definitions and which don't. (P.S. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why is it better to list these by "owner" rather than "operator"?...) --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The main reason to do it by owner not operator, from what I can see, is that these companies are little more than operating divisions, not unlike the old IRT, BMT and IND divisions in New York. It does make sense to me to group lines 1-9 together as being almost entirely comprable and unified.
 * As for the thick border, I can't say that I particularly like it. Aesthetically, and because it's not being applied to other cities with multiple systems, like Tokyo or New York. oknazevad (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The SMS lines 1-4, 5-8, and 9 are very much like the former IRT, IND, and BMT services, in fact. Epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, that explanation makes clear sense to me. As for the 'border', my understanding is that it is a "temporary" measure while we do the tallying of the totals (aside: and, again, the "Total" row needs to go too, but I think that will be converted to 'Note' form soon...) - I would certainly oppose the dark border if it were to be permanent. --IJBall (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not liking the 'dark black borders' now - I think what that is trying to accomplish would be better (and more aesthetically pleasingly) accomplished with 'Notes'... --IJBall (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed all the colors of the borders to something more vibrant. Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, they look even worse now. Let's get that note up, and leave off the grouping borders entirely. oknazevad (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or we can rowspan the cities... Epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good work gentlemen. Although I want to point out that the AREX has intercity high speed trains testing on it with service starting in Mid 2014. That wouldn't really qualify it as a rapid transit line. @Epicgenius
 * rowspan seems like a good idea Terramorphous (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rowspan looks great! Excellent call Epicgenius! Two thoughts. First, when combining the city entries, we should also combine the countries. There are no metros that go across international borders, so it looks weird to have separate country entries for one city. Secondly, there's the inconsistency of having PATCO combined with SEPTA for Philadelphia without doing the same for the PATH with New York. I think we should either combine the PATH in to New York, and leave the mention of New Jersey off of both, as it isn't the main city, for either, or conversely, separate PATCO back out. oknazevad (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I merged the PATH and NYCS/SIR entries the right way, but correct me if I'm wrong... Epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Point taken, Oknazevad - I'll try to take a look at doing what you suggest with also the combining "Country" & Flags cells in the next 24 hours... --IJBall (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And ✅. Now all we need to do is finish tallying the Seoul numbers, so we can delete the 'Total' row, and covert that info to a 'Note'... --IJBall (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rowspan sehr gut! They don't call him Epicgenius for nothing. For now, I suggest to set minor issues aside, and to focus on finding and checking sources. Remember: All of Seoul is sourceless, it can and will go if none are found. I would not be surprised if some unsourced ones are plain bogus. As for the language barrier: A few choice deletions of unsourced entries (after due notice) usually bring out the refs.


 * Even entries with sources can sometimes be wrong. I am one of the steady maintainers of List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times and the stories I could tell .... Please also check some recent edits that were made in the heat of Korean War II for whether they are really needed/ backed up by sources/NPOV. We should not open ourselves up to allegations of OR and other wikinvectives. BsBsBs (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Metro systems by annual passenger rides masseypacer amalgamated the ridership of all operators Seoul, Incheon and Korail. Apart from the need for these datum to be separated the Korail stat has issues that it includes the ridership of the regional/commuter lines that extend to neighboring provinces.
 * The Seoul Metro constellation of articles have been modified by masseypacer to promote his POV, particularly the Korail commuter lines such as Jungang Line, Gyeongchun Line, and Gyeongui Line. Terramorphous (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to handle the latter - I suppose someone could try to revert to a version before he started editing those articles (though any other edit and changes during that same period would be lost...) but in the case of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway my understanding was that that article was already problematic even before he got there. In any case, I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about the Korean systems to be the one to attempt to "fix" those. I can probably try to fix the "...by annual passenger rides" list though... --IJBall (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Massyparcer is now back to the list of Metro systems by annual passenger rides, where he is insisting upon trying to combine Seoul's and Incheon's ridership figures, despite the fact that those figures come from two separate references from two separate entities. It is now clear that Massyparcer is 100% guilty of WP:Synthesis here. I would appreciate any help I can get on this issue over there are at the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article. Also, I'm about ready to call for Massyparcer to be reported - I'd strongly prefer not to it myself (for one, I don't know how to...), but I'd appreciate it if one of the higher-ups around here (i.e. Admins) might consider reporting Massyparcer's disruptive editing, and I'd certainly be a willing witness. This has gotten out of hand, and a stop needs to be put to this nonsense... --IJBall (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. See Metro systems by annual passenger rides. BsBsBs (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing? I wonder who is disruptive here, violating WP:NOR which clearly says that - "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. And we have Seoul Metro, SMRT, Incheon, Sinbundang and AREX all making the same argument. So this is perfectly acceptable under WP:NOR. Massyparcer (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, Incheon can't be classified with Seoul, because they are two different cities with two different sets of metro systems that happen to be connected by way of non-free transfer stations. (Unless you think Incheon and Seoul are part of the same city...) Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The system is serving Seoul Capital Area just like BART serves San Francisco Bay Area, which nobody is shunning. You have different cities in BART as well. The Tyne & Wear Metro crosses multiple cities in Northeast England. Seoul Metropolitan Subway is no different. And if you haven't read the legal laws of the official sources, they are all defining them as one system. If you can read Korean, now is a good time to put that to use. Massyparcer (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As BsBsBs and I have pointed out on numerous occasions now, this editor can't be talked to or reasoned with. No matter how many times you point out what you just did about Seoul's and Incheon's systems, or how many times you point out that BART and Tyne & Wear Metro have single owner/operators while Seoul and Incheon have different owner/operators, or how many times you point out that his own "references" also lead one to the clear conclusion that Seoul, Korea's systems are all multiple different systems (e.g. note his references say things like "...the sections of metropolitan subways [emphasis mine - note the plural] operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail [again, emphasis mine]." or "The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators. [emphasis mine] Many extension projects are under construction on the already extensive subway network. [emphasis mine]"), it just never gets through. At this point, I think it would behoove us all to take BsBsBs' advice, and refrain from further contact with this one. It just does no good... --IJBall (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I would refrain from personally attacking another editor claiming that I "can't be talked or reasoned with". No matter how many times I point out that this is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators, and as such that "practice" of listing them by operators is going in a collision course with the very purpose of this article, he doesn't seem to get it. No matter how many official legal laws I show to him proving that they're a single system - Both technically and legally, he refuses to listen. And that "subways" you quote from Incheon Transit is a mistranslation, which has been corrected. It refers to Korail's metropolitan subway lines. IJBall you just proved yourself that you agree with me by quoting Railwaytechnology.com's source that "Many extension projects are under construction on the already extensive subway network. [emphasis mine]" - Yes, they're a single subway network as you correctly say. No plurals. I hope he's starting to get this... Massyparcer (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Other lists and articles using this list


Please patrol other lists/articles that use this list as a reference for whether they do this accurately. If they don't, please leave a short and factual note, or simply report it here for further action/discussion. Here is a start:


 * Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides.
 * Talk:Total rapid transit systems statistics by country

BsBsBs (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On Total rapid transit systems statistics by country: That list is so seriously problematic that I think it should be nominated for deletion. That's another thing I don't know how to do (so if someone more authoritative wants to give it a go, please do...). But I'd support deleting that list because I think there's no way it can ever be, 1) properly sourced, and 2) not guilty of WP:Synthesis... --IJBall (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a few admins around here who probably could advise us on how to go about it. I think I am characterized as an "inclusionist" on WP, and I never filed an AFD. (Although I successfully defended against a few.) I am willing to learn, though. That clearly is a very troubled page, and there would be far more good than harm, if it would go. 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I could 'source' all of one figure that could be potentially used for a list like that: the total "heavy rail" ridership in the U.S. for 2012, using APTA's Ridership reference. You might be able to come up with a source for annual 'metro' ridership the U.K. as well (I think I've seen one in past pokings around...). But national "metro" or "heavy rail" annual ridership figures for most of the rest of those countries?! Fuhgeddaboudit!!... And no way can you find total route length figures by country... Yeah, this page should either be drastically be refocused (on total annual ridership by country), or be cut entirely. --IJBall (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commuter the sentence, please.
I think we all need a few days of rest from catechism, and discussions involving angels on a pin. At least I do. Please delay any matters involving definitions until everybody has recuperated. After that, please do not add any unsourced material whatsoever. In that vein, I have taken the liberty of removing the somewhat liberal interpretation of Right of Way that said "And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems have their own right-of-way..." It was unsourced, and if I may be so bold, it made little sense. The dreaded commuter rail definitely can have (and usually has) its own ROW. To share the pain, I have also removed the likewise liberal " The term "their own right of way" in that definition means that transport that are not urban passenger trains, such as freight trains, shall not use the same tracks."

The (in my eyes completely correct) sentence “Furthermore, most metro systems do not share tracks with freight trains or inter-city rail services” should suffice for the moment. Let’s not re-write the bible, and let’s not open ourselves to allegations of OR. Trust me, he will be back, in some shape or form.

I am talking the weekend off while I am introducing the American 2X4 to an antique Japanese house. and while I try to please a definitely not antique Japanese wife. I am not researching sources this weekend. However, correct me if I am wrong, the way I understood the ROW discussion was that it was initially used to discern “light rail” from trams, which operate under road traffic regulations.

As for commuter rail, I believe that outside America, one will run into considerable trouble with the term. In most places elsewhere, commuter rail simply does not exist, and we might try to exclude something which simply isn’t there.

All that, however, should be left to a complete rewrite of the intro, for which we shall put the lessons learned over the past weeks and especially days to good use. I am now completely in the segregationist camp, simply because it helps to stamp out abuse.

BsBsBs (talk)
 * It is my firm impression that the definition "Urban Guided Transport systems operated on their own right of way" excludes non-urban trains on the same track. After all "their own" should mean "their own". You defend your view writing "However, correct me if I am wrong, the way I understood the ROW discussion was that it was initially used to discern “light rail” from trams, which operate under road traffic regulations." I understand that background discussions might important to clarify a ambiguous legal text. But do you have a source for that, and what it actually referred to, and did not care to refer to? As for the term "Commuter rail" it is used outside USA, as a near direct literal translation into Swedish is "Pendeltåg", the name for local trains on mainlines in the two largest metropolitan areas, usually equaled to "S-Bahn" in German language. As this is English Wikipedia it is bad to use "Pendeltåg" or "S-Bahn", but something should be used since those two terms need an English equivalent. Note that there will be impossible to find exact definitions of commuter rail which match brandnames between (and inside) all countries (how do you define "S-Bahn" except through a brand name?). It is also outside the scope of List of metro systems‎ to define "Commuter rail", even if we could use "Urban train system which at least partially share track with inter-city, long-distance or freight trains."--BIL (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Swedish "Pendeltåg" would be the German "Pendlerzug," which is not a railroad, it's a train. Well, it was, the term falls out of use with the onset of rapid transit. A Pendlerzug is/was, as you correctly say, a train that ran on the regular railroad, and that brought workers into the city in the morning and back to their "Pendlersiedlung" in the evening. High volume in the morning and evening, super infrequent during the day. Same tracks as inter-city and freight. I understand "commuter rail" (as opposed to "commuter train") as a small network, a "commuter railroad" that is separate from the main railroad, that brings mainly commuters to the one or two stations in the city. For instance the Long Island Rail Road or Metro North. THAT definitely has be be kept apart from a metro.


 * The Pendlerzug, i.e. the commuter train ceases to exist in Europe and Asia when there is a rapid transit network. No special trains (well, usually, see Home Liner) people simply take rapid transit to commute. At least in Germany and Japan, I would not know of a "commuter rail" (as in railroad) equivalent. Pendlerzug, ja. Pendlerbahn, nein.


 * The longstanding commuter rail discussion aside, we should not write stuff like "And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems have their own right-of-way..." which simply is not true. The LIRR definitely has its own ROW, it will be diesel loco (on the Montauk line) against car if we don't agree . Let's learn from the Massiveparser wars, and let's not bend definitions. The ROW won't help us keeping metro and commuter rail apart, so let's not rape the ROW. It will eventually bite us, and it impairs the quality of the article. I agree that it is also outside the scope of List of metro systems to define "Commuter rail," so please let's stay away from it.

No sources today :) See above.

BsBsBs (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I also don't like the term "commuter rail" since the trains often run on mainlines. There is a term commuter train, but is much less used than "commuter rail" in English. We shouldn't change terms based on what we like. The term right-of-way does indeed define metros, so there is no reason at all to stay away from it. I do not bend the definition. You bend it and accuse me of bending when I straighten the thing out.--BIL (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just chime in here and say I agree with BIL's (and others') take on the UITP reference - my reading of "right of way" there does mean that no other rail service can share those tracks with a metro (by definition). I'm willing to leave it BsBsBs' way for now. But if many more of us agree with this particular reading of the UITP reference, the deleted portions should be put back in to the article's intro... --IJBall (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, we all know that neither IJ nor BIL have any sources to prove that "right of way" there does mean that no other rail service can share those tracks with a metro. Textbook example of WP:NOR by interpreting the source's meaning through whatever you want to believe. Anything that's not explicitly defined by the source is OR. Full stop. Any unsourced claims will be challenged and removed. Massyparcer (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But first, it is not only written "right of way", it is written "their own right of way" in the definition. Second, how do you want to interpret that? With source. And please be precise, because we need to draw a line against regional train systems, or is the Oresundtrain system (854 km) a metro?--BIL (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need the full sentence of that "their own right of way" definition and source to be sure. But we must not confuse right-of-way as being specific to a certain rail track because by definition, it simply refers to land that's cleared for uninterrupted use by a certain traffic. I have explained this below but I will post it again. "Right-of-way, by definition from the law dictionary "Right-of-way"(West Publishing Co., 1910), pg. 1040, simply refers to land that's cleared for use by a certain traffic (like road or rail) - But what the traffic consists of, is beyond the scope of the definition. In other words, the definition doesn't distinguish the traffic (it can be any rail mode from intercity to freight and metros), so we must not attempt to invent a definition out of the air, as this is violating WP:NOR." Massyparcer (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, one of the proposals for the 63rd Street Lines was for subway service to run on the Montauk Branch (on the portion that no longer belongs to the LIRR) between 21st Street – Queensbridge and Jamaica, sharing track with the LIRR. If so, would the Montauk Branch be considered a subway, the 63rd Street Line considered a commuter rail, or would the commuter rail and metro lines be sharing a right-of-way? The latter choice is what is happening now with Seoul. Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Munich S-Bahn shares tracks with all sorts of intercity-trains and even runs diesels. But it's listed as a metro here. So right-of-way, by definition from the law dictionary "Right-of-way"(West Publishing Co., 1910), pg. 1040, simply refers to land that's cleared for use by a certain traffic (like road or rail) - But what the traffic consists of, is beyond the scope of the definition. In other words, the definition doesn't distinguish the traffic (it can be any rail mode from intercity to freight and metros), so we must not attempt to invent a definition out of the air, as this is violating WP:NOR. Massyparcer (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epic: How would I have loved a direct train from the Upper East Side to Montauk while I still was rich!!! To answer your question: If that would have become reality, some lunatics would have stricken the New York Subway from this list, due to being commuter-infested (and diesel-soiled, to make matters worse....). However, in reality, the subway would have remained the subway, and the LIRR a commuter network. Track sharing is a red herring, don't eat it. (Would you believe that - during my rich days - I could hear the lone Metro North diesel train running through the Park Ave tunnel late at night, while I was sleepless in my bed?)BsBsBs (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)