User talk:Terramorphous

Terramorous
Thanks for all your excellent contributions on China's new rail projects. I really appreciate them. I am a Chinese Railway history buff and most of my own Wiki contributions are of a historic nature. It's sort of quaint that you are Cantonese but live in Canada and I am English and live in China (Hong Kong) ==


 * Thanks! However, a small correction, I live in China (Hong Kong).Terramorphous (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Beijing Subway article rating
Hey Terramorphous, really excellent contributions to the Beijing Subway and its constellation of articles. The main article still has B ratings from WikiProject Trains and WikiProject China that were made in 2006. Given all of the improvements to the article since then, not to mention the growth in the prominence of the subject, the article deserves a better rating. Do you know how to get the rating reassessed? ContinentalAve (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

你好 感谢你的支持
对于棒子的行为是在无语了，相信阁下看我的说话的内容也猜到我不会英语了，我希望将首都电铁圈在List of metro systems条目内的长度统计分开，考虑到韩国统计人流量只算1-9号线应该这么做，但是不知道在首尔的地铁里面系统图是怎么的，这个可以作为一个参考依据，另外这次上海地铁官方将磁浮的长度和车长都算入了，这也是个依据，不过考虑到魔都的速度就算这次失败了来年也会超过的，BTW阁下不玩中文维基啊--Qa003qa003 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 这次官网将磁浮算了里程发布了新闻，其次上海地铁发行地铁磁浮一卡通. 另外首尔能将多个公司运行的线路合并计算为何上海的磁浮不能？磁浮和上海地铁的关系类似于两家运营公司，更何况两家公司是一个集团的，而且要注意不将上海磁浮算入上海地铁系统属于原创研究，如今地铁官网宣布里程都将其算入. --Qa003qa003 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 没办法了 等年底吧. --Qa003qa003 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanjing Metro
Question: Can you explain what is going on with the Nanjing Metro? The words "suburban rail" are generally synonymous with "commuter rail", but I am now completely confused by what is going on with Nanjing's S1 Line. Specifically, if it's "metro", and not "commuter rail" then why is its line number "branded" differently? IOW, if it's "metro" and not "commuter rail", then why is it "Line S1" instead of the originally planned for "Line 6"? Also, what are the particulars of the S1 Line - is it fully grade-separated with no at-grade crossings? What are the headways on the line? Does it share track with other rail? Etc. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Markham Pan Am Centre
Hi, I am working on articles related to the Pan Am Games and was looking for a photo of the Markham Pan Am Center. Would it be possible for you to take a picture of the facility? If so can you please do so? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Little Tokyo Station Editing
"Pic ain't all that great. It seems to show that Little Tokyo is a wasteland."
 * I actually believe you have a point there. My images for the station were quite miserable, and I guess you're right. But honestly, as my experience with taking pictures on that station that's the only good direction to take the pictures for the platform view...other station placards either is blocked with chairs, trash cans, or poles, and the other placards has scratch graffitis all over them. I don't know how to take the same style of photo for the station otherwise...can you take a better picture? Just asking. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now look, my Cantonese huoban (伙伴, just a formality). You said that my picture for Little Tokyo Station looked like trash, and I agreed. But you stepped too far when you got the non-trashy looking ones and reverted them, too. That's an issue. See, these stub articles lack images and the visual description of what the station looks like. But my uploading for platform view has more reasons beyond that, so I'd advise you not to take them down if possible.
 * Also, to your message of limiting the images on platform as negative...I disagree. It shows the main graphic design of what these stations go by, you know. I also had tremendous amounts of disputes with other users about this. I really urge you to leave them alone. It's painful when they take it down, since that pretty much voids my hard metro trip I've committed for Wikipedia. HanSangYoon (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, big contribution, little contribution...for a page with lack of pictures, it doesn't really matter. What's more, little contribution or no contribution at all? Which ones better? Little is better than none. If there is deep negative resentment on the picture, wait. I will try to gather more pictures (I'm in LA, and I enjoy taking pictures of things like metro) and show it to you so you could decide which picture is better (I used to have someone do that for me but I kicked him out). On behalf, don't revert them! HanSangYoon (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Busan as unwary Line 1-Infobox
I was quite confused when the route diagram was gone- I presume you're gonna improve it and put it back? Cause we need a route diagram for the page. HanSangYoon (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I never said that the readers were idiots (or tried to express that they were). There are few users who cannot realize of what the numbers might be, so I added in the word as a service that you could add by 6. I don't really want to create a fuss but I get your ideas that there will not be younger people (like little kids) seeing Wikipedia? HanSangYoon (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to sound heated. Yes as you now know simple things like math and addition don't need to be spelled out to the reader. For example you don't need to say there are 20 stations with 10 under construction so that makes 30. You can just say 20 stations with an addition 10 under construction.Terramorphous (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, whatever. I don't like it, but it's definitely fine. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"It's a war zone there"
Trust me, I'm well aware—although my station articles are British, I keep a couple of major stations worldwide watchlisted to keep an eye on how countries are doing things, and noticed this dispute when it popped up in my watchlist again every time I looked. I'm reluctant to wade in—I know I'd be irritated if US users turned up on WP:UKRAIL issuing pronouncements on how the articles should be formatted.

I don't think he's doing this out of malice—I think he just has a very, very misguided view of how Wikipedia works, and feels that he has some kind of entitlement. I can just about agree with one aspect of his argument—LA Metro stations (other than Union Station) are notoriously boring architecturally, so it's a lot harder to get interesting photos of the stations than it is with somewhere like Chicago or Moscow. As a tip, look at how we handle the supremely boring architecture of the Heart of Wales Line, where almost all the station buildings were demolished to save money and thus the stations all look like this; even with stations consisting of just a concrete strip a photo of the platform (rather than the sign) has more value, as it shows the reader at a glance that the station facilities are minimal. – iridescent  19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes but all we are asking for is a platform shot just like your Llanbister Road Station we don't care who takes it, as long as it is the best one available. Imagine if it was just a shot of Llanbister Road's station nameplate. That is what HSY is advocating.Terramorphous (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait. So you're trying to tell me taking the signage of a station as a main image is wrong? If that's the case, I'm willing to commit a huge project of changing all of the entire subway system image of South Korea. I like their format, but because I am dramatically disheartened by users who complain of it, I am unwilling to let either the Los Angeles Metro pages or the combination of Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Gwangju, Incheon, and Daejeon of Korea and Tokyo of Japan's entire subway system to stay the way it is. You guys believe placards aren't part of diversity, then the Asian subway pages deserve to be changed. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Terramorphous, I entirely agree with you—my point is just that I'm reluctant to pile in, as UKRAIL people turning up telling USRAIL editors "this is how it should be done" is just as annoying as HSY turning up insisting that US articles follow the same formatting as Korea. HanSangYoon, this is not to sound patronising but Los Angeles is NOT IN KOREA. Wikipedia is not Encyclopaedia Britannica, and doesn't have a single style standard across all articles (other than the very limited guidelines at WP:Manual of Style); the formatting which WP:KO chooses to use on their articles has no bearing on how WP:WLA chooses to format theirs. As a very rough guide to "how things ought to be done", have a look at WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Trainsand in particularly the station articles there—FA and GA aren't indicators of perfection, but they do show that the article has been scrutinised by a number of people and have reached a stable version by consensus. FWIW, on a quick dip-sample of five randomly-chosen articles in Category:Seoul subway stations (Gasan Digital Complex Station, Dongguk University Station, Bucheon Station, Obin Station and Incheon International Airport Station) not a single one has a photo of the platform signage. – iridescent  15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * iridescent, I understand the your reservation, as always the choice is ultimately yours.Terramorphous (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , Los Angeles is not in Korea, that's definitely correct. But then, Los Angeles is not in United Kingdom, either. I feel as if we are saying that Los Angeles Metro should just go with the British format of doing page formats; your argument doesn't add up, either. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * iridescent isn't saying that at all, they are explicitly saying the opposite: that the UK do things differently, but LA should do things their own way. It doesn't matter what another series of articles do, there is no one standardised way of doing things. English Wikipedia doesn't even use one standardised for of English (see WP:ENGVAR), let alone have a set way that stations should display photos in infoboxes. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Terramorphous, sorry for being so active, but some news...
ColonialGrid decided to report me here about defending the Busan Metro Line 1's template route map (check the history)...might wanna check. I am beyond ridiculed. (Also, check ColonialGrid's and SarekOfVulcan's talk page) HanSangYoon (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Shenzhen Metro evolution
I noticed there was a minor mistake in your work File:Shenzhen metro Evo.gif. The Chiwan – Window of the World section of the Line 2 (the orange line) opened on 28 December 2010. The Window of the World – Xinxiu section opened on 28 June 2011. You have reversed the order in your work. --180.160.25.176 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right I will fix that.Terramorphous (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We're waiting for your thought on:
HanSangYoon (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk page: Busan Metro Line 1
 * Image referendum 11, 12, 13 is open

Light rail in Canada edit question
Terramorphous, I'm confused where you got the new Calgary C-Train ridership figures from in your recent edit at Light rail in Canada, as the Q4 2014 APTA report doesn't include figures for Calgary. So where are the updated figures you got from?! Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that it's from the Q3 report. Terramorphous (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Senergyoni

List of United States light rail systems by ridership
Hi, Terramorphous! When updating List of United States light rail systems by ridership, I'm pretty sure you forgot to update the 'Ridership per mile' figures as well. Just so you know --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of updating it when you posted this but thanks for the heads up.Terramorphous (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! I only brought it up because whenever anyone else has ever tried to update these articles, they haven't done the Ridership per mile figures, even after I asked them too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

S-train
Thanks for your comments on this; it might be worth waiting to see if any other contributors to the page have an opinion, though, as returning it to a pre-OR state might involve going back quite a way. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

成都地铁建设GIF图更新请求
If you could not understand Chinese clearly, pls reply and tell me then I will use English write this Talk again.

阁下您好，刚刚在翻阅中文维基百科条目"成都地铁"时，发现该条目内使用了您的 ，文件最后修改时间为2016年，故在条目内被加入了标识，特来邀请您对该文件做出更新，此致Hamishcn (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 你好，我平時年尾會更新. 但係，我可以今個星期加2017年最近新開同埋年尾會開地鐵段 (4號線東西延線，7號線和10號線第一期). Terramorphous (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

-好，咁麻煩你咗，不過我仲係advice你得閒葛話儘量每多一條更新一次，呢樣更方便讀者瞭解. Hamishcn (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Chengdu Metro Evolution
Thanks for your efforts in updating it. But I noticed that the colors of line 7 and line 10 are wrong. Please switch their colors.YanTTO (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Ring Roads of Wuhan
Hello, I'm just here to say that I've proposed that the articles concerning ring roads of Wuhan be merged, as there is really no need for all of them to be in separate articles. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Beijing Subway station number
I see you partly reverted my edit on List of metro systems about Beijing Subway, claiming that the "311" figure already omits Xijiao LRT stations. However, I had thoroughly verified - on Wiki pages about each line, on Schwandl's "UrbanRail" Beijing page and on the official map (from www.bjsubway.com) - and I'm positive you're wrong: Conversely, if also the interchange between Xijiao Line and Line 10 at Bagou (巴沟) is taken into account, subtracting 53 (counted twice) + 6 (3, but counted trice) = 59 units from the overall total of 370 ⇨ it'll make 311 unique stations. Therefore the unique station current count is 311 including Xijiao LRT and it's 306 omitting Xijiao LRT 93.57.255.93 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * starting from the figure on the source you yourself provided (here), it says 370 stations (counted multiple time) for the whole network, 6 of which for Xijiao Line / 56 interchanges, one of which between Xijiao Line and Line 10 ⇨ exluding Xijiao Line, it makes 364 stations / 55 interchanges;
 * manually counting on the official map (here, not updated yet), it shows 51 transfer stations served by two lines (counted twice in the "370" total) and 3 transfer stations served by three lines (counted trice in the "370" total) ⇨ adding the newly opened interchange between Fangshan Line and Yanfang Line at Yancun East (阎村东), it makes precisely 55 interchanges;
 * subtracting 52 (counted twice) + 6 (3, but counted trice) = 58 units from the previously calculated total of 364 ⇨ it makes 306 unique stations.


 * I too have manually printed out and tallied the stations on this map (which is updated) . Though back checking on my work I seem to have missed Dajing Station so my count is actually 312. Did you count the new infill stations that have opened? There is only 2 of them (Nongdananlu Station and Pingleyuan Station) so that doesn't explain everything but Schwandl's "UrbanRail" says they are still closed. Did you count the S1 Mentougou Line? UrbanRail is incorrect as the line does not reach Pingguoyuan Station yet. Also I believe Pingguoyuan Station is closed for renovations until 2020 or something. I still counted it, as it was operating. Also Xingong Station may be treated differently as it is a technically not an interchange station.Terramorphous (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I redid the count (this time using only the Wikipedia map you suggested) and the result is again what I wrote above: 306 unique stations if Xijiao Line is omitted and 311 if it's included; since the LRT/tram line is actually drawn in the map, you might have involuntarily counted also its stations in your first calculation. As for your other remarks, I counted:
 * the two newly opened infill stations (Schwandl's "UrbanRail" map shows them as closed, but in the text is written they're open);
 * the S1 Mentougou Line, with 7 station and no interchange, taking into account the "UrbanRail"'s mistake;
 * Pingguoyuan station, not knowing it could be currently closed (anyway, temporary closures don't matter, see NYCS in the table);
 * Xingong station as a regular one (as it's officially treated by the operating company) and not as an interchange.
 * 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I looked back at my work and the Xijiao Line was not counted so I reprinted and recounted the stations, getting 306. What a strange coincidence that I double counted exactly the amount of stations there are on the Xijiao Line. Good work and catching that.Terramorphous (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sometimes coincidences are quite odd :). Now, I'm pondering whether to restore the paragraph that explicitly excludes restricted stations from the count (it was in the note before your initial edit): I know it's a rather irrelevant detail (for such a general article) and somewhat redundant (they're implicitly excluded when the note says operational stations), but I feel that it could be worthy of mention in a note, being an interesting peculiarity of this system (that not many people know) and being able to avert any, albeit remote, possibility of doubt (if I correctly understood, at least one of them - Fushouling Station (福寿岭站) - is still in use, as it stated here). What do you think? 93.57.255.93 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hongqiao Railway Station (metro)
I don't want to break the formatting changes you made in the infobox for this article, so please revert back the changes you made and apply them, if you would like, to Hongqiao Airport Terminal 2 Station. Your source,, clearly indicates that this is for Hongqiao Airport Terminal 2 Station, not Hongqiao Railway Station (metro). Another hint that this was probably the wrong station was that your source is missing Line 17. The previous station layout was correct. The two stations are not the same. Thanks.  Heights (Want to talk?) 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, did not see that. Thanks for noticing it. Fixed. Terramorphous (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GZM ridership information
Hi, you may want to add ridership information to the lines' Wikidata items as well, using property. (This probably helps because the old values don't get deleted every year.) Jc86035 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

有關地鐵發展歷史gif檔案
謝謝閣下抽空制作這一系列的檔案. 我已經為閣下所有同類的檔案加入commons:Category:Metro evolution的分類，如果閣下還有新的檔案上傳，可以順道加入這個分類. 另外，我也希望可以制作出類似的檔案，請問是用甚麼軟件制作的呢？-- owennson （ Meeting Room 、 Certificates ) 10:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presto card, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TTC ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Presto_card check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Presto_card?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Shenzhen Metro
I see you're communist, so would you please refrain from editing any China-related article and covering facts, that your propaganda is deliberatly trying to hide to look more superior? You can edit Baidu or something, where lying about everything is acceptable, but here, covering extreme levels of hipocrisy and patheticalness is not tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:1600:5F00:782E:5BCF:59AC:F6FE (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC
Hello, I've now started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains so could I ask you don't revert but instead comment there?, If consensus is to keep these I'll self rv/add them all back, Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 13:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * everyone seems to be of mind at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains that it is OK to leave platform layouts if they are not simple side or center platforms. Your thoughts? Again I don't mind exit lists and/or layouts for simple stations being removed but I would prefer that more complicated layouts be left in. Hence me only reverting a handful of your removals (three) as opposed to rolling back everything you have done on the other stations of the Guangzhou Metro.Terramorphous (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Terramorphous, I disagree, From reading everyones comments there I would say everyone would agree that the content I was removing should be removed and the prosed and sourced (or unsourced) content (such as here, here and here) should all remain,
 * Having clarified on the RFC I was basically told my removals were fine (because I assume they're only maps and don't contain any prose),
 * If you were to make proses similiar to the example articles above they could be kept but as I said consensus so far would seem to suggest my removals are fine (providing I'm only removing maps/exits and not prosed (un)/sourced layouts/exits which is what I'm doing),
 * Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I too have read everyone's comments and there is no consensus about wholesale removal of platform layouts, again I don't care about the exits which everyone agrees is unnecessary.Terramorphous (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well like I said I asked for clarification and got said clarification .... if you want to start an RFC on my specific removals you're more than welcome too,
 * The whole point of that RFC was to get consensus on my removals however I don't appear to have been as clear as I thought and instead everyone's assumed I mean the layouts/exits of every railway station here,
 * Anyway once the RFC is closed I plan to continue my removals but like I said you're more than welcome to start an RFC on my removals, Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Photos of Beijing metro stations
It is great that someone cares about a quality of the articles, but you have removed already more than a dozen of my photos, with the edit summary "better picture". Could we please have some respect for my work? I have photographed all the stations of the Beijing Metro in 2010 and 2012, when nobody cared about them, and made sure that all the articles are illustrated. Indeed on some occasion my pictures are dark (they can be lightened but I do not have time for that now) but they typically have better composition than the replacements, and at lest on one occasion (which I reverted) my picture was illustrating the article when the replacement clearly was not. Could you please a bit more considerate, I disagree that all my pictures are so bad and the replacements are so much better.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Please don't take offence, my intention was to never to put anyone down or systematically remove someone's work. I just noticed a lot of images (not only yours) of Beijing Subway stations made them look really dim. That may be the case when I visited in 2004 but that was certainly not true when I visited in 2016 and 2018. I just went through each station's article and compared it with what picture was being used in the equivalent Chinese Wikipedia. If the Chinese Wikipedia had a better image, I put the same one in English Wikipedia. My edit summary is just short (retrospectively looking back, blunt sounding) and never intended to be combative or directed at anyone. It was the autofill suggestion that pops up when I fill out the edit summary so for the sake of efficiency (there are a lot of subway stations in Beijing) I just clicked the autofill suggestion to let everyone know what I have done. I agree the composition and framing of your pictures is fine. If you lighten your pictures and put them back I will not stop you. My goal is simply the show the Beijing Subway under the best possible light (literally and metaphorically) Terramorphous (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baoshan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tram check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tram?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Railway CRH2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First class ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/China_Railway_CRH2 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/China_Railway_CRH2?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Chenxiang Highway
Would you please stop your disruptive editing? Chenxiang Highway is not a brand new station, so it shouldn't count as an "expansion". Just because it opened recently does not mean it is a brand new station. The station actually was built in 2009 but did not open until 11 years later. You don't appear to understand that.  ETI 15TrSF  ( Chat  Box ) 04:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I reverted your edit once; that is not disruptive editing. Please don't accuse someone of bad faith editing just because they don't agree with you. Secondly, Chenxiang Highway was not built in 2009. It was approved in 2014 and construction started around 2018 with opening in 2020. (See sources and consult Google Earth historical imagery). I will revert your change on List of Metro systems. If you have any further issues take it to the article's talk page. Terramorphous (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Should REM be considered an S-train?
The reason I put REM under S-Train was for the same reasons BART is listed, even though it's a rapid transit system as opposed to the S-Bahns seen in Germany. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * REM is basically rapid transit, S-Trains usually have something that makes them not rapid transit (track sharing with mainline trains, lower frequencies or at-grade crossings.) The REM doesn't have these things. BART is very borderline I think it is included due to its really long stop spacings (REM has wide stop spacings but not BART wide). Additionally, some of the outer branches have quite low frequencies during the midday. Terramorphous (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

List of cities with most skyscrapers
Can you please provide a reliable source that mumbai has just 70 skyscrapers because according to the source I've provided which is Emporis mumbai has 125 completed skyscrapers, you can confirm that with the wiki page for list of tallest buildings in mumbai. And even if you consider Ctbuh mumbai has 74 skyscrapers completed not 70 on ctbuh's list mumbai is 19th but you put mumbai 21st please don't edit with malice i know its hard for foreigners to believe that a city like mumbai has so many skyscrapers but thats the truth and i have provided a reliable source in the form of Emporis to justify my claims. Joy goel (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This is just to convey to you that I've checked Ctbuh thoroughly and its quite evident that many skyscrapers of mumbai are total missing from their databases moreover some of the heights are not accurate as well, while the source that i have cited which is Emporis is 100% accurate and all the skyscrapers of mumbai with their heights are mentioned. according to Emporis there are a total of 360 skyscrapers in mumbai, complete, u/c and proposed inclusive and i have counted the number of skyscrapers above 150m and with conclusive evidence i can vouch that the number is 125 i would kindly urge you to please go through the vast databases on Emporis and revert to me with your opinion,  thanks. Joy goel (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to edit this as you changed your message to me but:
 * 1) No, Emporis says there are 70 confirmed skyscrapers in Mumbai. As shown here:.
 * 2) "i can vouch that the number is 125" is not a source and is WP:NOR.
 * 3) I can not use "List of Tallest Buildings in Mumbai" as a source as WP:NOTSOURCE.
 * I do not doubt there is undercounting of +150m buildings in Mumbai. There are for alot of cities in China too. Shenzhen has about 40 +150m buildings CTBUH or Emporis missed but we must go by the rules and use reliable sources. I await your response/clarification. Terramorphous (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would humbly urge you to please count all existing skyscrapers in Mumbai according to emporis and please read all the pages from 1-18 I can confirm that there are over 120 existing (completed) buildings above 150m, and yes I agree with you there surely is undercounting of skyscrapers for example emporis doesn't mention towers like three sixty West which is set to become the tallest in Mumbai at 361.2 m even imperial edge and some other skyscrapers are missing from their databases but there is far less undercounting on emporis than there is on ctbuh, please do revert to me if necessary, thanks Joy goel (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I do see the batch of entries being +150m but they are using an estimated height, I'm not sure if it is appropriate to include it as a source due to the uncertainty of the estimates. All other cities on the list do not include buildings with estimated heights I believe.Terramorphous (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes i agree those are estimated heights but all the buildings there are above 40 floors so they would be above 150m. Most of the cities on the list are sourced from ctbuh and Ctbuh has a massive problem of under counting with regards to mumbai if you see some of the cities which are sourced from emporis like for example Kuala Lumpur, Manila, tel aviv, Taipei and some others they all include buildings with estimated heights so i think it would only be fair to let mumbai also to have buildings with estimated heights but all atleast 40 floors (in accordance with the definition of a skyscraper ) be included. Otherwise a massive chunck of atlest 40-50 skyscrapers but be excluded which in my humble opinion would be unfair.please revert if necessary, thanks. Joy goel (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your knowledge of Spanish language
Excuse me Sir? I'm not sure if your those comments from Talk:List of metro systems indicated which level of your Spanish language knowledges: OPPOSE, vast sections of Metrovalencia outside the city center run on old (but upgraded) railway alignments that still have tons of at-grade crossings and limited frequencies. It behaves like a small scale Crossrail line. A would also like to add large sections of Metrovalencia operate on single track with passing loops. So I really don't understand the logic of comparing it the RapidKL which uses fully grade separated automated metro trains. RapidKL or any metro system does not look like this [1][2][3][4][5] Bangkok BTS and RapidKL have nothing alike with Metrovalencia I do not know why this is being brought up. Someone pointed at zh:Talk:地鐵列表 that made strong comments against your "opposes" regarding Metrovalencia, which I'm afraid that they also doubted your Spanish knowledges: 5号线的本身的条目es:Línea 5 (Metrovalencia)也标示为地铁，而且以5号线使用的车辆，和整体具有独立路权的路线来看，5号线绝对是地铁路线. 还有您一再以某些用户的立场为“巴伦西亚不是地铁”辩护，那为何他们不去修西语和英语条目，把1、2、3、5、7、9号线的metro拿掉？况且本列表中比巴伦西亚更具争议的南非那些都市铁路 (绝对是通勤铁路)都没有被删除，没有理由删除至少有一条确定完全达到地铁标准的巴伦西亚. 上面如果语气过重，我感到非常抱歉. 我会以注释形式，标注巴伦西亚轨道交通的特殊情况. lit. The article of line 5 (on Spanish Wikipedia) es:Línea 5 (Metrovalencia) is also marked Tipo (Type) as Metro, and following the rolling stocks of line 5, plus its full grade of right-of-way on its routings, line 5 is absolutely a metro line. Also you're again and again citing some other users' "Metrovalencia isn't metro" propagandas to protect your fake comments, then why don't you ask those users to also edit the Spanish and English Wikipedia articles, to remove their Tipo Metro of lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9? And plus the South African railway systems (absolutely commuter railways) are having more conflicts than Metrovalencia, if those are even not deleted, then I'm sure there are really having more reasons to not delete Metrovalencia which really has at least one standarded metro line. If the above comments are too strong for you to accept, I'm apologizing here, too. I will add code-comments to specific the special case of Metrovalencia. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is silly, please don't drag English Wikipedia into this. I don't care if people over there "doubt" my mastery of the Spanish language because if it is not clear right now: I don't speak Spanish. Also everyone there needs to read WP:WINARS. Terramorphous (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

update request
File:Chengdu Metro Evolution.gif needs update, for the network has expanded. Fuyo21 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)