Talk:Copenhagen Metro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Anyone with spare time on their hands are welcome to merge this article with the existing one here on WikiPedia. --Chr 01:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey ... Thanks for this. I'll to turn it into an article as soon as possible. Thank you! PZFUN 03:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just a nitpick, but yellow text on a white background is very hard to read. 85.76.152.179 05:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anyone with knowledge about the overground stations on the way to Vanløse from Nørreport is encouraged to add information about their construction and what have we. I think they run on the ground as normal trains, and not on embankments as on Amager, but I'm not sure, and I haven't been able to find any pictures of or information about them. --Ghent 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
To settle that "rail rapid transit rail system" bit, I think that it should be "rapid transit rail system" or "rail-based rapid transit system" because we're not transporting rails here. ;) My personal opinion is that "rapid transit rail system" is better because you go from generic to more specific terms - the logical way. Ghent 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think any reader is going to be confused, thinking that the Metro transports "rails". "Rail" is an adjective describing what kind of rapid transit system it is - and distinguishes it from a "bus rapid transit" system. Adjectives precede the noun they describe: "large rapid transit system", "old rapid transit system", "rail rapid transit system" - not "rapid transit large system", "rapid transit old system", or "rapid transit rail system". The final test: a Google search of the term "rail rapid transit system" receives 46,600 hits, while "rapid transit rail system" gets only 15,900 - the former phrase is obviously more heavily used. Denvoran 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I'll bow to Google. But I maintain that it sounds stupid. I am very well aware of the fact that adjectives come before the noun they describe, but you can say a "rail system" and describe it with "rapid transit", which then would become the adjective. Ghent 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- It may sound stupid to those for whom English is not their mother language, but to my ear "rapid transit rail system" sounds awkward (I work in the public transport business and never hear it this way). I agree with your point, but is the article about a "rail system" (the German Federal Railways, the SNCF, Japan Railways, etc. are what would first come to mind as examples of "rail systems") or about a "rapid transit system" (the Paris Metro, the New York Subway, the London Underground come to mind). Though it is a "rail system", if you had to choose between the two, the Copenhagen Metro would be better classified as a "rapid transit system". Thus, "rapid transit system" becomes the noun which "rail" then describes. Denvoran 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair argument. You have convinced me grammatically. Phonetically you haven't, however, because my boyfriend says that it sounds stupid too, and he's as British as it gets. :p Ghent 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You imply that only the British speak English correctly, or better than any other English-speakers at least. Well, you (and your "boyfriend") are entitled to your opinion. Denvoran 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)