Talk:Tokyo Metro 10000 series

Opinions
Wikipedia isn't place which are written that "I think ~". If you don't think the front design similar from 300 series, that were announced on magazine and web page which I showed.

Front design are written on Japanese magazine or 東京地下鉄10000系電車. I looked also on magazine that the reason of central emergency exit is for emergency time connection. But each article constitution of magazine are difference so if you chacked on the magazine, please chack other magazine.--Ichikawa Taichi 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I said severe writing over need. --Ichikawa Taichi 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ENGVAR reverting
Pinging everyone involved; lets talk it out then. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm here due to XtraJovial dragging this to ANI almost 3 months after the fact and somewhat uncivil comment after uselessly blocking the IP that was the subject of the ANI complaint for a week, or to put it more clearly, to make a point. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, what is your opinion on British English vs. American English use in the article Tokyo Metro 10000 series? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference. The current or previous status quo is fine with me. The only things more ridiculous than changing an English variation are changing it back, edit warring over the change and complaining about the change/revert war on a notice board. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'em The ENGVAR-violating IP has had a series of edits which led to their block, the most recent of which was made in early December; see their edit history. They've been warned numerous times prior and have failed to communicate; clearly the warnings weren't working, which is why I reported them to ANI three times (first time on another IP) before their block. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But why even warn the IP or revert their change? Just let it be. It doesn't matter, particularly when the variation changes are consistent throughout the article. Reverting the variation change is more disruptive than the original change from my point of view. Going to ANI for those changes is certainly more disruptive (as it attracts those like me who have contempt for Wikipedia and especially its moderators in no small part due to hypocrisy). Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because MOS:RETAIN indicates that English varieties shouldn't be changed without consensus, which is precisely what the blocked IP has been doing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why can't you just over look the change and retain the new version? That's my point. Is it really worth arguing over? Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. MOS is extremely important. There are readers from different parts of the world who like to access Wikipedia. If there's any article that doesn't stray into the U.S., then it should definitely be made into something like, British English because that's the most common type of language that people around the world talk and the IP is making disruptive edits by changing this style to the American English. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The MOS does not recommend one style in particular over the other in this case. You seem to think that British English is in some way preferred in general. It isn't. Neither is American English.
 * If you expect people who prefer American English to accept articles written in British English when it appears in an article without strong national ties, then you need to be ready to do the same when the situation is reversed.
 * The purpose of the MOS regarding ENGVAR for articles without strong national ties is to prevent unnecessary disruption due to silly arguments over individual preference. Reverting back to your own preference further adds to that disruption without improving the quality of the encyclopedia in any way. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverting back to your own preference further adds to that disruption without improving the quality of the encyclopedia in any way. ...which is precisely what the blocked IP was doing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP introduced the change. Reverting it only further violates MOS:RETAIN, causes further disruption and does not make an improvement. Going to ANI just added to the disruption. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Say PHDHE, have you been editing under this IP address at all? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP introduced the change and should not have, again per RETAIN. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Being disruptive to revert disruption does not make it right. It just doubles the disruption. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain how reverting disruptive edits doubles disruption. I've never heard of disruption increasing when editors revert an anonymous IP's disruptive edits. After the IP has gotten past their final warning, the administrator is notified and puts a block on the IP address. No way can this be considered even more disruptive. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the same way, all vandalism in considered disruptive. So is reverting vandalism going to increase disruption? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It unnecessarily adds to the article history and database storage requirements as well as promotes a battleground mentality which could be easily avoided by refraining from reverting the change without causing any further harm. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not going to work that way. As an example of a hypothetical case, say you are a vandal and decide to vandalize an article. Are you basically saying we shouldn't revert the vandalism just because it will "take up database storage requirements?" That makes no sense. You need to think about how the reverts work properly. The reverts HAVE to add to the storage history because the edit is unconstructive. Also, the storage requirements have nothing to do with the article history. Only if you click on a certain user's contributions will they determine the storage. Even if there's an edit war going on, administrators are always watching Wikipedia 24/7 and ready to protect a page when it is necessary. I myself am not an administrator, but I know how they work. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about vandalism. I am talking about trivial changes and reverts where both versions are valid.
 * Every edit to every page adds to the storage requirements unless the entire page is deleted (including this entire discussion) and someone may need to waste their time going through the change history to make sure something like sneaky vandalism snuck in during a revert war doesn't get missed.
 * More importantly when you revert a trivial change such as ENGVAR, you encourage others to do the same to promote their own preferred variation and create a hostile environment of continuously reverting across multiple articles. The solution is to just stop regardless of which version is present or who last changed it. All of the color vs. colour type nonsense isn't worth anyone spending one more instant on. Both versions are correct. Just leave it be and ignore it if someone else changes it. Or don't and we can continue talking in circles indefinitely. Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to worry about this, but I'm sure someone else is going to agree with me and start this argument back up. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is that you think they will agree with? That it makes sense to violate MOS:RETAIN to enforce MOS:RETAIN? Please Hammer Don&#39;t Hurt &#39;em (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not getting the point. Just because reverting disruption can be done doesn't mean it will increase. Again, there are administrators who will protect the page when it is necessary. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious block evading editor has been blocked. Conversation wasn't going anywhere anyway as they refused to get it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One item of note, NoobThreePointOh the edit summary here is incorrect. We do not use British English for articles not about the US. We use the version of English that the article was first written in and don't then change it if there isn't strong English national ties. If the article creator used British English, then it's British English going forward. If they used Australian English then it's Australian English going forward. If it was US English, then it's US English. And so on. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the first time an English variation is established in this article is with the very third edit where it's clear that US English is the variant used. As a result this article, per MOS:RETAIN should be reverted back to using US English and not British English. US English was established long before someone used any British English spellings, so the British English needs to be removed from the article and it re-established back to US English as it was originally. The IP and potentially socking editor above are actually in the right in this instance (though they went about it wrong.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like I did it in the right way... but for the wrong reasons. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually no I erred. British English was established in the very first edit with colour. Technically you can argue with the ize and aluminum of the third edit it firmly established Canadian-English spelling. However yes, British English was the first edit so that should be MOS:RETAINed. Canterbury Tail talk 17:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh... I'm kind of surprised. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)