Talk:Moscow Metro

Transliteration of Russian place names
In writing about Moscow Metro for the Malayalam Wikipedia, we are finding it difficult to correctly transliterate the Russian place names. For example, do we pronounce Park Kultury as PAARK KALTTARI or PAARK KALCHCHARI (or perhaps something completely different)? Can somebody please help by transliterating the list given in https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/സംവാദം:മോസ്കോ_മെട്രോ. (I am not putting the list here as I don't want to clutter up this page.) Thanks Jose Mathew C (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased and unacceptable article
Due to huge problems with russophobia in this article I would propose to remove it at all. There is a good and detailed article in Russian section of wikipedia, anybody interested can take information from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you find the article biased and unacceptable, feel free to update it. Remember to include proper sources and references to any additions you make. Janneman27 (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * well, no sense in this article at all - how many Americans or Europeans can use Moscow metro? BTW, it's very outdated, maybe 10 years - no new lines, no second ring, it's like reading article about London underground written in 80s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A45E:72A7:1:527B:9DFF:FED0:561 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Metro Passenger Numbers
It is possible that the claim about Moscow being the second busiest underground network in the world needs looking at. The article that it links to uses sources from 2008 and 2009 when quoting figures for Tōkyo's and Moscow's passenger figures. Following terrorist attacks, a report on BBC Radio 4 said that Moscow was the busiest underground network in the world. •• Fly by Night (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

L1
The table says L1 is L1, but it should be sorted as if it were line 12. What if one day a real line 12 is built and we want to know how it should be sorted?? Should it be 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-L1-12 or 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-L1?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-L1 looks natural to me. The table doesn't imply that L1 is some "12th" line, it just puts it right after all the "letterless" lines in a standard alphabetical order (first numbers, than letters A, B... L etc).--Sascha. (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply because we're using the sortable function of Wiki table. If we write "L1" instead of "12", the ascending sorting will sort the "L1" before "01", "02", etc. p.s. Moscow Metro has officially changed the title of Line L1 to Light Metro: Butovskaya Line (ЛЕГКОЕ МЕТРО: БУТОВСКАЯ ЛИНИЯ). Just discuss it before moving the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * «Simply because we're using the sortable function of Wiki table.» - and that's fully ok, I suggest we just continue doing thst. «If we write "L1" instead of "12"» - we are not writing L1 «instead» of 12, it is MM who has designated the line L1 (Л1) and not 12, we are just reporting things as they are. «Just discuss it before moving the article.» - that one I didn't understand, we should discuss moving which article where?--Sascha. (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Title of Line L1 currently is Butovskaya Light Metro Line. I'm suggesting moving it to either simply Butovskaya Line or Light Metro: Butovskaya Line (Naming conventions (technical restrictions) approves use of colon), though I prefer the shorter one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bank cards
Let's imagine a next condition: an average of 44-48 trips per month (40 on work days plus few times on weekends). The Transport Card for 90 days cost 3020 rubles. So it's going to be 24 160 rubles per two years. 48 trips per month cost 894 rubles with the bank card. That's 21 456 rubles. Plus you have to pay at maximum 1200 rubles for the card (2-year service in average). So you saves at least 1000 rubles comparing to 90-day Transport Card and over 4000 rubles if you use 20 trips tickets. Not everyone is able to pay 10000 once for a yearly unlim card. And, unlike with bank card you won't get refund if you lose it.

Therefore: in specific popular conditions the statement is dubious. Elk Salmon (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1080/60=18 (This card is valid for 45 days, so we are easily fit even in 40-days area if you buy in advance before the weekends, for example). Addon: If you override 70 trips, it doesn't stop the charge and you hit 21.14 RUR insted of same 18.

18*48=864 instead of 894+for a card. 91.76.209.103 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (48*24)/60*1080 = 20736. Just slightly cheaper. And you won't get refund if you make under 60 trips in 45 days. For 1080 р. You buys up to 60 passes in 45 days. So it's not notably more expensive and still cheaper in some conditions. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

dogs
what about the dogs? I didn't see any of them in london or nyc 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of wild dogs, some exotic birds and other natural fauna is still normal thing for the city. It has nothing to do with metro. After all you can find them some times in entrances. But very hardly on stations. Elk Salmon (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are dogs that use the actual metro. In Moscow. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Literally Street dogs in Moscow article. Uchyotka (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup
The article contains a lot of language mistakes, most notably the Russicisms. I have tried to remove or verify the unsourced claims, but still someone unfamiliar with the topic has to place citation needed templates where appropriate. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 10:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cult of Moscow Metro Section: Neutrality
I'm sorry but this section is written from single point of view only. Even though well-resourced, the information is presented as the Wikipedia's point of view which is unacceptable. The researchers themselves should be noted as the supporters of the following point of view as other views also present. I think that it is important to correct it. --Tserg (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Besides, this seems like a stalin rant. GTFO commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.197.61 (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * *ANGRY UNDERDOG NOISES* Uchyotka (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually the poster of this section, as well as the other sections regarding stalinism. It was a final project for my history class (college). Honestly I don't follow how this section is biased because it presents mostly factual information. My source specifically cites the festivities following the opening of the metro. If you could highlight specific problems you have with the section I'd be happy to evaluate them in the context of the piece. Maybe you're having a problem with my calling it a cult? However there is legitimate historical term, the cult of personality, which is used to describe the overall russian population's trust in Stalin as a leader. That trust was there in part because of Stalin's achievements as a leader as well as his charismatic nature. The "cult of the moscow metro" relates directly to Stalin's cult of personality because it is an extension of stalin's image as a leader who promoted "the technological and ideological victory" of socialism. -Jane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.72.31 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This explains my question below, wondering where the larger section on Stalinism originated. While it's very good as a term paper/thesis, I think in Wikipedia it constitutes original research and needs some editing.--Miniapolis (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempted to neutralize some headings. Wegerje (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Neutralized the language and removed unneeded adjectives in section 1 (Glorification changed to Publicizing the metro for example). The next three sections need similar work. - But ultimately I agree that maybe this is not the place for these paragraphs. Wegerje (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the part of article is prejudiced. I actually live in Moscow and have seen most of the metro stations many times, and few of them have any Stalin-related symbolism, and half of them don't have any Socialist symbolism in general. Even when there are things like Soviet coat of arms, etc., they are not dominating motive. The style also is not usually some specially "Socialistic", lot of them resemble classical old-fashioned palaces, and different stations have very different styles. Sources familiar to me say that the idea of making the stations' design individual was born so that people wouldn't feel depressed or frightened to be underground. Aranelle (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Moscow Metro "own" style and "atmosphere" discussion
Aside from neutrality debate, I would like to discuss something about Moscow Metro: its Stalin-era stations were full of decor; something almost not used in not-rich country USSR was. One of my sources: Design.ru studeo creator, Artemiy Lebedev, also has a site designated solely for Moscow Metro design, literally "metro.ru". Uchyotka (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

How should I discuss Moscow Metro's style, architecture?
Oh! And here's something to discuss. I believe "tasteless opulent manors" attributed to Russian oligarchs, actually use the motiffs of both pre-Khrushov's and post-Khrushov's Moscow Metro (as in "one design goes across the whole station, every column is the same, yet every station is designed to be unique, and feel different"). I kno-o-ow there is this synthetic phrase "Stalin's ampir", but I think it is too far-fetched from crimson-rich "ampir" cabinets; the stations were never featuring wood-and-alizarin combinations and almost completely lacked dark wood decorations - something which characterizes ampir design. In fact, I cannot remeber any alizarin-colored Stalin-era station in Moscow's downtown.

The Moscow Metro as a Reflection of Stalinist Ideology
I'm not sure this very long section belongs in this article, at least in its present form; at the very least, I'm going to paraphrase it and try to simplify some of the academic language. Apparently it's from elsewhere in Wikipedia; I'd love to know where!--Miniapolis (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's NOT a "reflection of Stalinist Ideology" as in style, let alone propaganda --- it's just an attempt to build a metro system which doubles as an AAA bunker (won't work nowadays, but it an okay shelter back in the 1940's). I think the wall of text on ideology part just doesn't belong to this article at all. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: There's a Runglish-class misused double negation. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct color??
The map near the top of the article says that Line 12 (which I believe is the Solntsevskaya Line) is pink.



But the line template says that it is light green.

Which is correct?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Line 12 is supposed to be the Third Interchange Circuit. The official map uses orange stripe with dark-brown strokes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And Solntsevskaya will be Line 13?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No again. The official map marks it as Line 8 which confuses me because it's supposed to be an independent line from Kalininskaya until 2017. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And what then?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The colors for future lines are copied from Russian Wikipedia by me. You can edit the MOSMETRO color‎ for correction. And the map on Wikipedia was modified by IgorNsk. It is difficult to modify because it's raster image rather than vector. I would say we should always follow the official version rather than speculation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Russian Wikipedia still isn't official. If this info were from the Moscow Metro's official map, then it would be the official version. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True, we can compromise by using the map without proposed or constructing lines like file:Mosmetro2010.svg or File:Moscow metro map en sb.svg until someone has make an accurate one per official data. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Overview needs revising
Part of the overview contains detailed specifics and should be removed. It is also written in a highly simplified language which is inconsistent with the rest of the article.Landroo (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I improved the Overview's style. More tomorrow? JeffreyDavidSpeck CtrlAltDel 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"11" in tables
The "11" in the current lines table refers to the current line 11. But the "11"s in the expansion table refer to a new line. Can anyone fix this?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Current Line 11 will be a part of new line. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

L1/12
In 2006, there was a long discussion about whether to call Butovskaya 12 or L1. Now, someone changed the line's index used by Wikipedia from L1 to 12. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the map design winner, ArtLebedev, did suggest to rename Line L1 to Line 12, as long as the official site still call it L1[http//mosmetro.ru/], we retain the naming/numbering, otherwise that constitutes original research. Hence, I highly suggest we revert the icon images of Butovskaya Line too. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This map is already used in the metro and the line is signed as 12 in it but most old signage with L1 is still not replaced. Also Butovskaya line is no more referred as "light metro", now it's just one of the 12 lines of the metro system. 95.73.126.251 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can confirm, Butovo Line is #12 now, while Monorail is #13 (which is ... so weird it "deserves" #13 designation for being slow and overpriced).

Two line 8's
There are 2 line 8's?? The map appears to say so. Georgia guy (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather, it's a single line that presently consists of two unconnected segments. A middle part is planned for construction, but... I don't think that's going to happen in the next 10 years. YLSS (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of lines
If there are two line 8's, the total number of lines should be 13. Any flaw here?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See my response directly above. It's considered a single line. YLSS (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New logo
MosMetro now have new logo¹, maybe, it's better to replace one in the article? ¹ www.artlebedev.com/everything/metro/logo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.56.32 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2014
 * Well, if you know Russian, you can check ru:Talk:Московский метрополитен. In short, it is still unclear, how much it is introduced or not, and how it should look like: just the red letter M or that letter in a red "curl", as can be seen for example here (at the bottom). YLSS (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is "so well introduced" now it can be see on some trains' seats, on the tickets, and even some merch they sell in Trubnaya stations' kiosk. Uchyotka (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Moscow Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100302210610/http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif to http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended map
Greetings to everybody. A new map of Moscow Metro has recently been introduced due to the fact that the Moscow Ring Railway (MKZHD) is to be launched this September. I wonder if this image could be incorporated into the article. The map is bilingual. Unfortunately, the resolution leaves much to be desired, but I haven't managed to find a better picture so far. Thanks in advance. Eugene, Moscow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.20.245 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have one. Wikimedia always prefers free (CC-BY-SA 3.0 compatible) alternative unless the image itself justifies its own article (e.g. tube map) which still can only be used within the limitation of Non-free content. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing though, you can email ArtLebedev to ask if they want to license their Moscow Metro diagram under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. CC license is non-exclusive, that means the diagram can retain its original (monetary) license and only be used freely without direct permission when the conditions of "Attribution-ShareAlike" are firmly complied. But that also means others can modify and redistribute the diagram openly, something that ArtLebedev designers might not want to agree with. For example, the English romanization that is currently applied on their diagram is not compatible with the one on Wikipedia, e,g, Zhulebino vs Julebino which we might need to correct if we are given the right. Another condition you would want to ask ArtLebedev for besides the CC license is to release the vector source file (not PDF) of the diagram, preferably SVG for future modification. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

M1 or 13??
Ten years ago, I thought that the Monorail was a separate system that's run by the same business, and thus must be called Line M1. Wikipedia now refers to it as the 13th line, as if it were just another line of the Moscow Metro. Is this true now?? Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask ArtSwan. They're responsible for attempting to "right the wrong". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, while urbanrail.net says M1 is now line 13, the following URL still thinks that the proposed line unrelated to M1 is line 13:

http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/transit/projects_moscow.html

Wikipedia itself refers to M1 as line 13 in the line template and in the monorail's article, but as M1 elsewhere. Georgia guy (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: it's marked "13" on all trains now.Uchyotka (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Change of system maps maintenance
Just a notice for you guys that I will not longer update the system maps without future plans because maintaining these versions along with the ones with future plans (File:Moscow metro ring railway map ru sb future.svg and File:Moscow metro ring railway map en sb future.svg) is very tiring and could easily lead to errors, after all very few people around are willing to proofread the maps carefully. If you want to create a new one with perfectly round shape of TPK and Central Ring to supersede my maps, feel free to do so. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping them intact for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me too, for the maintenance that you have done. (Of course, I can understand—Moscow Metro is expanding very quickly right now, so that's why it's so tiring to update the maps every few months—but thank you anyway.) -- epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming colors of lines 1 and 14
Line #1 is already red. What's an accurate description of line 14's color?? Crimson?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strawberry red. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very weird phrasing, considering edible strawberry is also red. I would unironically call #14 white (it has thick white inner line and red side lines) Uchyotka (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moscow Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://mosmetro.livejournal.com/229066.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sachak.chat.ru/istoria.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325143605/http://www.metro.ru/map/1935/metro.ru-1935map-big1.jpg to http://www.metro.ru/map/1935/metro.ru-1935map-big1.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003020857/http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif to http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Moscow Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/611s1bFKl?url=http://old.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=590 to http://mosmetro.ru/info/routine/station/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310172839/http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=99 to http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223000634/http://www.adme.ru/dizajn/u-moskovskogo-metro-net-logotipa-492755 to http://www.adme.ru/dizajn/u-moskovskogo-metro-net-logotipa-492755/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307152711/http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_1.php?id_page=56&id_text=956 to http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_1.php?id_page=56&id_text=956
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323191011/http://www.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=99 to http://mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206114322/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085 to http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=afR6LO3sb09Y&refer=europe

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moscow Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230103702/http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=4 to http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=4
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20010710190748/http://www.metro.ru/library/kak_my_stroili_metro/3.html to http://www.metro.ru/library/kak_my_stroili_metro/3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727014525/http://old.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=779 to http://old.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_0.php?id_page=779

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

– The year-old move was orthographically incorrect. Be it Линия Арбат — Покровка or Линия Таганка — Красная Пресня, they could turn into English Arbat–Pokrovka Line or Taganka–Krasnaya Presnya Line using dash. But those are not two different words indicating span. They are conjuncted into single word proper names. Therefore they use hyphen per Russain language rules, as they could not be broken. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line → Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line
 * Kaluzhsko–Rizhskaya line → Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya line
 * Tagansko–Krasnopresnenskaya line → Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya line
 * Serpukhovsko–Timiryazevskaya line → Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya line
 * Lyublinsko–Dmitrovskaya line → Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya line
 * Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line → Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line
 * Support. Spelling rules. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as per rationale above. Discussion can be closed soon as "moved", I think. Renerpho (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There were 13 lines moved to titles with en-dashes at Talk:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line, but there are only 6 lines listed here. Is there a reason for this? The result would be inconsistency. Dekimasu よ! 18:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging Elk Salmon. Dekimasu よ! 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained reason above. There is no such thing as consistency. There are language rules. I listed only Moscow Metro lines that have errors, but Ukrainian language has same rules. Ukrainian names are also proper names with hyphen (defis). Elk Salmon (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I see, I think. This discussion handles each of the Moscow lines from the previous request, which is reasonable. The Kiev lines can be handled separately if necessary, but the issue at stake appears to be the same for those. Please let me know if I've got that wrong. Dekimasu よ! 21:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Ordering the lines
Why does the table have 15 between 12 and 13?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Line 13 (mono) and 14 (railway circle) aren't "tube trains" metro lines in regular sense. Nekrasovskaya Line 15, however, is a full-pledged metro line Uchyot (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do whatever you can to avoid allowing the following discussion on this talk page
I remember the L1/12 discussion from 2006 about one of the line designations. If my memory is correct, User:Elk Salmon wanted the line to be called 12; while User:Kuban kazak said no; we have to call it L1. (That was back in 2006; it is meaningless today because the line is now called 12; the line Kuban Kazak claimed was going to be the real line 12 now exists as line 14.)

As for the discussion I'm saying we need to avoid, please note that a new user added 2 lines to the lines template; these are D1 and D2. The discussion I'm saying we need to avoid is whether it's okay to call these lines lines 16 and 17. Georgia guy (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why avoiding discussion? 12, D1 and D2 are official naming, which we follow . Elk Salmon (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The same way L1 was until 2013 for what is now line 12. Please remember the now-archived discussion from 2006. Georgia guy (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then if you look up that 14-year old discussion and edits you might notice, i didn't remove L1. I was providing both numbering that could be found in official references. Until early 2010's Moscow Metro didn't use numbers as active as now, so there could be different approaches. Numbers weren't taken much care of. Now, I'm sure you do know from other web resources? that I'm not in favor of D naming and I'm in favor of universal common numbering - 16, 17 etc. But it's not official. It was one of proposals, but D numbering have been taken into action. Elk Salmon (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, D1 and D2 still working as a suburban service using suburban trains and tracks. D1 and D2 will be completed by 2023-2025. Then will have own exclusive right of way with own tracks and stations. So then they could be added to this article, but at the moment they do not belong to metropolitan heavy railways. So there is even no need to mention them. May be only as under construction lines, including D4. Elk Salmon (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at Transport for London (TfL), the Moscow Central Diameters are arguably analogous to London Overground and TfL even includes them in the originally Underground-only tube map which also depicts Docklands Light Railway (DLR) as all 3 systems share the same fare system, just like what Moskovsky Metropoliten intends to do. But our UK Wikipedia editors still treat London Underground, Overground and DLR articles separately. From the point of article neatness, I do think we should treat Moscow Metro and Diameters separately, but that would also mean separating Moscow Monorail and Moscow Central Circle from Moscow Metro article too for consistency. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as i heard, Overground doesn't have an own right of way and not entirely grade separated? (that is the question). Still, it's been long complicated dispute of what to recognize as the metro system. There is an a definition from UITP, where not all official metro system falls into. But when built, MCD will fall into the definition completely. UITP is not the last instance, but definition is widely accepted with localized exceptions. Like many Japanese rail lines, even those not grade separated are still actual metro. Though some envy pushing some to disprove even those grade separated with own right of way, like Yamanote line. Moreoever, many Japanese metro lines actually accepting service from those lines recognized as commuter services. So it's very difficult to split them into what is metro and what is not. But. Most articles here are separated by administrative (ownership) entity. Moscow Metro is operated by the State Enterprise Moscow Metro, including line 14 (MCC), where RZD is only subcontractor for operation on line 14. MCD is operated by JSC CPPK, owned by City of Moscow and RZD. So, there could be 2 separated articles. But both MCD and MM articles should be widely referred in each other. List of metro lines in Moscow navbox should include both MM and MCD lines. There could be common article Transport in Moscow Region (Трансорт в московском регионе), containing information about everything - MM, MCD, Suburban railways, Mosgrotrans and Mostransavto buses, trams and trolleys, private buses, cableways etc. List of metro systems needs a great revision. There are many metro systems that won't fall into definition, and there are many that falls, yet not present in the list. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Future of Moscow Metro map for Wikimedia
I am here to inform you guys that after a very lengthy consideration, I won't be updating my Moscow Metro (precisely "integrated rail") map which is expected to include the Moscow Central Diameters. I came to this uneasy conclusion because my new career in a foreign country doesn't allow me to have enough time to handle this enormous project. I need to work harder while studying a foreign language. Incorporating the MCD into the current Moscow Metro+MCC map would mean every current line in my map needs to be realigned. Perhaps my desire to make my map as much as professional (even though it isn't really necessary here) and my purist approach to SVG with only text editor (Notepad++) are to be blamed. This is really my personal opinion, but the most recent incarnation of Inkscape still doesn't convince me that it is a proper substitute of text editor when it comes to basic octagonal rail diagram (using its own "symbols dialog" instead of the "defs" in the SVG specification).

The confirmation of Adobe Illustrator's eccentric handling of text alignment is another discouraging factor. Even if a professional cartographer is willing to contribute their own Moscow rail map in SVG under the CC-BY-SA license, texts of their SVG exported from Ai will always be misaligned and require impossibly tedious realigning work (maybe on Inkscape) to look properly on Wikimedia. And you will need to align every single non-right-aligned text whenever the pro cartographer updates the SVG, every, single, time. I am not kidding. After being able to use Ai CC2020, the first thing I did was to test its SVG export, and the result is just bad.

As someone is to abandon his own work, I will not make any requirement if any of you attempt to make your own new Moscow integrated rail map, with whatever software you prefer. I can still help out with minor revision if my time allows. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What a pity. I don't have the knowledge to do this. And I have never drawn images or schemes. -- Vadiml 07:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I should try AlternativeTo.net and replace Adobe Illustrator's with any other editor to see if it will handle SVG's any better.Uchyotka (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If was not building Metro. If was building ..
.. " Брестские крепости " вдоль всей границы с Германией .. или кто там был за.

Можно было ? 176.59.194.112 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lines 17 and 18
Do we know their colors?? The line template reveals 2 upcoming lines, but not which one is #17 and which is #18 or their colors. Georgia guy (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, "Moscow Central Diameters" seem to not count as lines number X -- we have line D1, D2; there are lines D3, D4 etc. on the way. I thing #17 and #18 are currently duds for future use. Uchyot (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

New Extension
Can someone update the map in §Network Map to include the new Mnyovniki station and any new lines? Thanks. Electos242 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lines 4 and 4A
Lines 11 and 11A are going to be merged. Lines 8 and 8A are 2 parts of a discontinuous line and the line is going to be a single line somewhere deep along the line (no pun on the 2 definitions of line please.) But Line 4A is a branch of 4, so I doubt it will merge; is there any reason it's called 4A and will still be called such even if it becomes a separate line and not a branch of Line 4?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they may close Kievskaya-Alexandrovsky Sad length of Line 4 because it is very slow, thus mergin' Line 4 and 4A. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Metro-1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Metro-1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

metro articles on thr moscow times website
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/search/Metro

Metro2fsb (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Metro Ridership
Hey, in the summary, the article calls the Moscow Metro the busiest in the world outside of Asia. What year is this referring to? On the right side of the article, the ridership in 2018 is listed as 2.5 million. If this figure is what's being used to claim it as busiest outside Asia, this is wrong at least compared to the NYC Subway, which had 2.649 million riders back in 2018. Aquamaster255 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 2.629. This is according to the 2018 APTA report. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2018-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf Aquamaster255 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Up-to-date data is always on . If shows error or nothing just try to reload.
 * Moscow Metro, excluding Line 14 -
 * Line 14 -.
 * All lines per station per quarter (for average daily divide by number pf days in a respective quarter) -.
 * All ridership stats . Can be exported to json, xlsx or csv. Elk Salmon (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

History section
the history section, in particular the description of the different stages of station construction, is largely uncited, features excessive and at times out of place block quotes, and sometimes includes bullet point lists (and italics) for seemingly no reason. Could someone, preferably the original author, add necessary citations and do some reformatting? I tried improving the layout somewhat, but I'm not familiar enough with the sources used to do any substantial revisions of the text itself. PS: I added a TOC limit to reduce the amount of blank space caused by the long TOC and long infobox, but for some reason the Notable incidents subheadings still appear for some reason, if anyone more knowledgeable could fix that. --jonas (talk)

@ 117.20.116.204 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)