Talk:Zagreb–Belgrade railway

Length of this railway line
I have changed the line's length from 424 km to 412 km. The reason is that the 424 results from the original counting Belgrade - Novska - Sisak - Zagreb, nowaday's mainly used line through Dugo Selo is shorter (21 km (Zagreb-Dugo Selo) + 84 km (Dugo Selo - Novska) + 307 km (Novska - Belgrade). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleeblatt187 (talk • contribs) 15 August 2013

Yesterdays splitting and how to continue
Yesterday this article's main content was split into Zagreb–Tovarnik railway and Belgrade–Šid railway, the remains have been changed into a "historical" article. There are so many (more or less) well-known cross-border railway lines listed at Category:International railway lines, but as of now I don't know any other case where an existing, crossborder article in EN-WP (widely used by international readers) has been split into two national articles just because a railway line (with mostly one history) is located in two independent countries and operated by two national network operators (I may be wrong, but as of now this seems to be the only reason to me.). Things like this usually can be clarified inside one article. Anyway, as always in life there is a first time for everything ... Greetings, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To a certain degree I understand the reasons, but not fully. The proposed (proceeded) split is controversial, at least from my point of view. According to WP:CONSPLIT it should definitely have been discussed before (even if the outcome might have been the same). I agree that Zagreb–Belgrade railway may be arbitrary, but the situation we have now is even more: Talk:Zagreb–Tovarnik railway Things could and should have been discussed before moving things around from one arbitrary situation to another. And many things, esp. the historical facts and today's two network operators could simply have been added to the article. This would have been a true value for international readers using EN-WP. For most readers, who do not live in Balkan countries, both Zagreb and Belgrade are clear enough, but Tovarnik and Šid most likely are not.
 * I reverted those editions and tried to point out the recommended procedure at WP:Splitting with a previous discussion (even if the final result might have been the same). Unfortunately my edits were reverted once again. Despite my basic understanding for the reasons, I do definitely not agree to this procedure without discussion. If interested, please see also the relevant section on my talk page.
 * Things seem really strange and arbitrary to me especially for the reason, that the very same user, who proceeded this undiscussed split, set up a correct splitting request at Belgrade–Bar railway, which is in discussion now. I can't see why there was for such a need for hurry in the case of Zagreb–Belgrade railway. And even if there were good reasons for this step, shouldn't there also have been such a request for Ljubljana–Zagreb Railway? Isn't the basic situation the same there? At least for me things seem more arbitrary now than the day before yesterday ...:-( Why don't we treat same things the same way?
 * I am not going to start an editwar, so if things do stay as they are now:
 * If this is supposed to be a "historical article" (as mentioned yesterday in the edit summary), would it be okay to add some information for the years from approx. 1862 to 1918? Or is this article now supposed to be the article for Yugoslav period only? Should we set up another article for the time before? What do you suggest? I am just asking, as we are always talking about the very same tracks between Zagreb, Novska, Tovarnik, Šid, Zemun, Belgrade ...
 * Is there a need to remove the infobox and the track? Wouldn't it have been okay to leave it as was (and to "update" it for maybe 1990)? Couldn't nowaday's national border have changed into a border between SR Croatia and SR Serbia? Maybe even the "border" between ŽTP Zagreb and ŽTP Beograd could have been added to underline the historical sense ... Seems to me not very respectful against our colleague, who created the track line in the infobox.


 * As for WP:CONSPLIT - it treats need for disambiguation pages so it does not really apply here.


 * As for comparison with Ljubljana-Zagreb railway - yes the WP:OR problem exists there too - thanks for pointing that out, I did not notice the article at all. I only noticed the article alert on Zagreb-Botovo railway and then made a cursory search through a couple of articles only - I'll be sure to post WP:OR tags elsewhere as appropriate. Existence of the Ljubljana-Zagreb railway or any other article does not support existence of similar articles nor does absence of "national articles" prevents content splitting per WP:OTHERCRAP.


 * As far as "historical" articles are concerned - those are fine - compare for instance the Brotherhood and Unity Highway and say A3 (Croatia). In that department, I believe a proper article would be Zidani Most-Sisak railway (built as a distinct line in 1862 as a unit - i.e. making sure the "historical" articles have to do with development of railways rather than arbitrarily chosen endpoints. Historical articles may well have tracks in the infobox but do you have information referenced to WP:RS about individual stations along the lines at the time of line construction (as would be befitting a "historical" article)? If not, I'm not sure what would you present in the track graph of the infobox? Unreferenced material or anachronistic information?


 * Regarding the complaint that readers unfamiliar with Balkan geography may not know what or where is Tovarnik - the point is valid, but wikipedia is not a travel guide (see WP:NOTGUIDE) but it should represent verifiable information avoiding original research (and arbitrary scope definitions) at all costs. I saw at the Talk:Zagreb–Tovarnik railway that you favour separate articles conforming to official classifications of railways in Croatia (i.e. M101 through M105 for Savski Marof-Tovarnik, M201 through M203 for Botovo-Rijeka, etc). That neatly corresponds to use of titles such as Bundesautobahn 8 which is not necessarily familiar to non-German editors but clearly defines the Luxembourg-Salzburg motorway. I agree with this completely and will prompt the editor you referenced earlier on to provide their comment here as well so that appropriate splits may be performed (provided they add to the consensus which appears to be building for such a move here). Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite my last comment at Talk:Zagreb–Botovo railway this consensus could be fine with me (not as my favourite solution, but as a consensus). Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no way to avoid the scope problem with a modern-day ZG-BG article, because that track not only crosses a state border but it also splinters numerous times between the two cities. It's not like there's a single set of trains traversing the entire distance (potentially allowing us to just put aside the jurisdiction problem). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following a discussion at Talk:Ljubljana–Zagreb Railway with User:Eleassar, I had a look at the WikiProject Trains/Manual of style and found no preference there between X-Y railway and eg. M101 railway there, so I assume WP:COMMONNAME applies and it seems to me like a split of this article is needed. Apparently one way out of this is to use official railway designations as article titles, i.e. M103 railway (Croatia) akin to D21 road (Croatia) scheme or titles like Dugo Selo–Novska railway. The latter might require simplification in some cases, e.g. Novska–Tovarnik railway instead of Novska–Vinkovci–Tovarnik–state border railway for practical purposes. Personally I'm leaning towards Mxxx formula because of its simplicity, brevity and more uniform presentation throughout the system. I realize that the move might create diverse naming formulas for different countries but neither WP:COMMONNAME nor MOS prevents that. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After some thinking I'd prefer the Mxxx formula as well, esp. as we would avoid discussing about the order of places and how to deal with the borders. M101 railway (Croatia) would definitely be clear; Savski Marof–Zagreb railway, Savski Marof–Zagreb GK railway, Zagreb–Savski Marof railway, DG–Zagreb railway, DG–Savski Marof–Zagreb GK railway, State border–Zagreb railway or whatsoever could be redirects (if wished). The same variety of possibility applies to Botovo, Tovarnik, Beli Manastir, Šapjane, Slavonski Šamac etc. ... M101 railway (Croatia) would definitely not be ambigious, no more discussion about Railway or railway, En-dash or not... And if we set up a list similar to what can be found at DE-WP or HR-WP (including a separate column naming the connecting foreign railway line) things might not be perfect, but better than ever before ... :-) Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll set up a list shortly and post back here when it's up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MXX format is the most widely used one, and it's certainly less clear to non-experts. People will look (in search and the categories) for the railway names that they can recognise, and these are simply stating the connected places. Per WP:AT, recognisability and naturalness are the criteria that should be considered in the naming of articles. --Eleassar my talk 09:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but there is more than one way to name Novska – Vinkovci – Tovarnik – state border line: besides that possibility, one may look up Novska-Tovarnik, Tovarnik-Novska Novska-Vinkovci-Tovarnik, Novska-border or need not even realize that Novska is that relevant. We discussed it above and came up with Mxxx solution, provided there is a suitable list of railways which will allow easy reference for non-experts and link the articles from that place. Now the list is here: List of railways in Croatia - there are several (two or three I think) existing articles which cannot be readily linked before they're split. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That there is more than one way does in no way trump the criteria of naturalness and recognisability: it matters only in the regard that the article title should be the most commonly used name. Now, I'm ok even if you name the Croatian railway lines using the MXXX pattern; I'm just not convinced that it is most in accordance with the general policy about the naming of articles. --Eleassar my talk 07:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But you can't just use the vernacular names because those are usually neither consistent nor precise - which are also WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. And arbitrarily picking from several vernacular names just to make them fit into some scheme easily constitutes WP:OR. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there are no official names of these railways using the pattern X–Y (e.g. published in Narodne novine)? --Eleassar my talk 07:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The new list article references NN... there's nothing on the order of prettiness that you want :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joy, while there are few neat examples like "Dugo Selo – Novska", there are monstrously long and clumsy titles like "Zagreb Ranžirni kolodvor (Otpremna skupina) – Zagreb Ranžirni kolodvor (Prijamna skupina) (IV. obilazni kolosijek)" and "(Martin Brod) – Razdjelna točka km 119+444 – Državna granica – Ličko Dugo Polje – Knin" quite in contrast with neatly specified Slovene railways (with two endpoints specified). Any simplification would simply result in arbitrarily set vernacular names (which need not exhibit consistency let alone accuracy). The same reference makes the Mxxx/Rxxx/Lxxx designations official for exactly defined railways. While it is true that the Slovene names are intuitive, the Croatian ones are neither in common and consistent use as names (bar few examples) nor intuitive (at least in a significant proportion). Therefore, and in absence of any wiki policy or MOS convention on the issue, I feel this "numerical" approach in combination with the list of the railways is the better choice for Croatian network.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having addressed my concerns. In the light of this explanation, I have no objection to using the MXXX pattern for the Croatian railway lines, except that perhaps the few neat examples should be named accordingly. Have a nice day. --Eleassar my talk 12:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)