Talk:List of stations of the Paris Métro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.

Contents

[edit] Format for Double-Named Stations: Invitation for Discussion

In the course of gradually adding information for individual stations, it has come to my attention that there does not seem to be a consistent rule for representing Métro stations with "double names." In some instances, the two elements of a name are simply separated by a space: Réaumur Sébastopol; in others, they are separated by a hyphen: Denfert-Rochereau; in still others, both a hyphen and spaces are used: Strasbourg - St. Denis. It would seem desirable to standardize the format used for such double-named stations.

However, there may be complications in choosing which format to standardize on because, as I discovered in the course of my research, there are actually several different reasons why a station may have a double name:

  • As noted in the introduction to the article, some originally independent stations become associated into a single interchange station, which thus acquires the names of both "substations." Examples include Marcadet Poissoniers, Reuilly Diderot, Strasbourg St. Denis, and Montparnasse Bienvenüe.
  • Other stations acquire double names because they are located at the intersection of several streets, each of which by itself may be insufficient to characterize the location of the station. This is most obvious when one element of the name is shared between different stations, as in the case of Sèvres Babylone versus Sèvres Lecourbe and Michel-Ange Auteuil versus Michel-Ange Molitor, but it applies to many other instances, such as Censier Daubenton, Faidherbe Chaligny, Lamarck Caulaincourt, or St. Sébastien Froissart.
  • Furthermore, there are a number of instances where an apparent double name actually refers to a single source. Although this is sometimes moderately evident, as with Jacques Bonsergent or Jules Joffrin, many others, such as Denfert Rochereau, Ledru Rollin, Marx Dormoy, or Mouton Duvernet are not as obvious.

Given these complications, the question which format to use for double names might need to be qualified by a second question: Whether it would make sense to distinguish these various possibilities by using slightly different formats. The existing names in the list sometimes give the impression that someone may already have tried to do this, though not consistently. The space-hyphen-space format, for instance, seems to be more commonly used for once-independent interchange stations, such as Marcadet - Poissoniers.

Suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated Vremya 12:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The easier is probably to use the same names as in the French Wikipedia. I just modified fr:Liste des stations du métro de Paris using the official maps of the RATP. The rules are simple: when a station combines several items, use a hyphen surrounded by spaces; when it uses an item which already had hyphens, let it as it is (i.e without spaces). Réaumur - Sébastopol has spaces because only the metro station unites them; Denfert-Rochereau has no space because it is a square and an avenue, and the metro station only takes the name of that square. Thbz 14:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

Every article by 195.93.xx.xx - List of Paris metro stations and therein (4d/11k)

  • Users from the above IP addresses are adding sub-stubs about the Paris subway. All the article lists is the "Lines serving this station" and a wikilink. I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but do we really need all these sub-stubs? A link does not an article make. —Frecklefoot 17:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I asked in several of his-hers talk pages what was doing, with no response. I agree with deletion. Muriel 17:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If the contributions are real (i.e. not made up or fictional) and verifiable, I see no reason for deletion. msg:stub should be added. Since they include the lines serving a station, they have some useful content. This should go to pages needing attention or cleanup, btw, since I see it mostly as a call for more information rather than deletion. Optim 18:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep unless obvious vandalism. Or list the pages here. Or at least give an IP address so I can find them myself. List of stations of the Paris Métro Anthony DiPierro 18:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Realisticly, what else would you put on those pages? Other than the lines serving, hours of operation and maybe a picture is all I could think of. Unless somthing historical happened at a particular station, and every station isnt going to have that. Its not a large page, but where else would you find that information? Although it should probably be confirmed that the stations actually do serve those lines, it could easily be vandalismTheon 18:53, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a collection of random useless information. If there is no realistic info to put in those pages, we shouldn't have them from the beginning. The list itself is useful, but all the Station articles without content are worthless. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I was annoyed by that as well. In particular, they need introductory sentences "Blah blah is a station on the Paris metro" to even be a stub. But... with this added, they are indeed stubs. Lots of work, yes a pain, no do not delete.
    • Keep - they are a lot of work but need more. We've managed to make decent articles about London Underground stations... Secretlondon 18:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral. I left about a dozen "welcome messages" for some of these IP's -- it seems to have made no difference. These could be a good start... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also neutral. I'm with BCorr, it could be a good start. Anyways, I added the Dallas rail stations yesterday that could be used as an idea for how to do a starting point for these. See list of stations at: 1, 2 and 3. RadicalBender 19:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Preferably merge into a single page (or a small number of pages) and only split out the ones which deserve their own article. But keep until someone's willing to do the work of merging them. Anthony DiPierro 19:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've done all of line 1 - it is a lot of work but I think worth it. We have photos, dates of opening etc on the ones in London. Secretlondon 20:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, totally non-famous. Anthony DiPierro 20:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How non famous? Hundreds of thousands of people will use them every year. I've left the author a note on their French user page btw. Secretlondon 20:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Hundreds of thousands of people will use the Saint-Sébastien Froissart station? It seems no more famous than many of the other topics we've deleted. Should we have a page for every subway station in the world? I'd be fine with it, but somehow I doubt others would. Which is more "famous", that station, or the McFly band? How many people have heard of the Saint-Sébastien Froissart subway station? Now how many people have heard of Colonel Charles Edward Jones? How many people each year will compete for the William Hill Kelly, Jr. Scholarship? Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, we need an article on every underground station in the world. Why not? Do you have any idea how much history the Greek stations have? come and visit them, and you will see small museums with photos and documents showing how they were contructed etc. every station is unique here and some of them like the Omonoia station are described as historical sites. Optim 21:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Sverdrup's statement has convinced me - Texture 20:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Of course there is information that can be added to them. That is why they are stubs. Secretlondon 20:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Reading this exchange leads me to believe that the information is useful and accurate as a single list but not in the entries that have no additional content. I read one that didn't even mention what city in the world was being referenced. I added the city but found no need for the article unless there is additional content. - Texture 20:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Maybe one article per line would make more sense. All as one list would be a rather large page. Anthony DiPierro 20:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I agree. - Texture 21:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Strong preference to keep. This is factual, verfiable, useful information that can be extended (see some of the equivalent London tube stations). It will be a lot of work to trash the lot of work that has already been done. These pages definitely fall into the "if they're not useful to you, ignore them and let them be used by others that do find them useful" category. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Decumanus 20:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. These fall in the same category as malls or other locally famous landmarks. Meelar 21:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, by analogy with London Underground and its related pages. -- Cyan 21:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 21:16, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Is it planned to have articles on separate metro stations? Then we can use

or


Otherwise we can make it:

- Patrick 12:42 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)


I would be rather in favor of the second option, although some stations might be worth an article. So, I suggest that we start using the first option, and convert to the second one if no article emerges over time. olivier 13:29 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence, but with regard to the 2nd I would say: as long as the link is not needed for the metro station itself it can be used for what the station is named after, in particular if it is a building or a quarter near the station. - Patrick 13:50 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

We're potentially having articles on every one of the stations in the Paris metro? I'm an unstinting metrophile and even then I think that might be a little much. Should I create articles on every one of the 65 stations of the Montreal metro, then? - Montréalais

Well they'd hardly be the most obscure articles on here! Personally I don't see any problem with it, potentially they could contain quite a lot of information; history, nearby buildings, maybe how to get to it by road from certain places etc. I think in comparison to, for example, the thousands of tiny American towns on here it could be quite interesting. Although I guess some stations would be quite hard to write about, some of the London Underground ones are pretty generic. - Ams80 14:15 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I was going to create such an article, but then I realized that all the information is already on my website, in a more interesting fashion than I could present it here: http://www.metrodemontreal.com . Surely the same is true of the Paris metro? - Montréalais
On the french Wikipedia, we are planning on doing articles for all stations, indeed... history & such
After all as pointed out it may give many interesting info
Ryo 15:14 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone care if I move this article to List of stations on the Paris Métro? (Note: "on" instead of "of"). To my native-English-speaking ears, "on" just sounds better. I'll wait a few (probably two) days to see if anyone objects. Moncrief, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try List of Paris Métro stations or List of Paris métro stations (should Metro be capitalised?) -- 217.24.129.50 10:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of Paris Métro stations is indeed the best: short and simple and grammatically pleasing. I do think Metro should be capitalized. I'm going to change it to that if no one objects. --Moncrief, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I believe Métro is a formal name, like the D.C. Metro, and should remain capitalized. ugen64 01:59, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

What would really help is a map. -- 217.24.129.50 10:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact is, most of these stubs will never contain much useful information, nor could. There are a number of stations with a history and interest, and perhaps they deserve articles, but not every single one; the remaining should be mentioned in passing on this page. A similar, but opposite debate occurred with the Topology glossary, in which many terms that otherwise would've been sub-stubs were collected on one page, but many now have articles of their own, while others almost certainly never will.

I don't argue that you can list quite a bit of information about any given subway station; what I argue is the value of such information. Unless it's truly historical or economically central, this information would be useful only to people actually using the subway, who necessarily constitute a tiny minority of Wikipedia's audience, particularly the English Wikipedia's.

In short: delete all the sub-stubs, add short descriptions to this page or a page on the Paris Metro, and leave links to the larger station articles. Derrick Coetzee 13:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I couldn't have stated it better myself. —LarryGilbert 20:30, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)
Wholeheartly agree! There is no sense in hundreds of sub-stubs, that never will contain more than one line - and never be red by anyone. And anyway: No one will keep this information up do date. Collect it on one page. A map would help also (would make more sense, since you could read all informations you need, and it would make it possible to update the page easier).--Thomas 12:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] 360 stubs on one page

See Wikipedia:Shortpages/Paris Metro. -- User:Docu

[edit] Cleanup instructions

The cleanup instructions on this page:

If any station page linked here is just a few lines long, redirect to [[List of stations of the Paris Métro]] and remove the link from this page.

were signed by a user. I've removed his sig, since I don't believe users' names should appear on articles. I also corrected the original redirect instruction (containing the character string M%E9tro) since it created redirects that didn't work. - dcljr 05:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eh, I can think of enough info for each station to make it more than just a substub, or at least too big to put all the info here. In my opinion, there should be info about configuration (two platforms on each side, one in the middle, or complicated), local attractions (to avoid POV, list ones signed in the station), locations of access points (and history of those if one was added later), whether parking exists, transfers to major bus lines. Maybe some more stuff. --SPUI 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

While working on the double redirect project I ended up here. I noticed that there were multiple links from this article back to the article. I intended to return and clean them up. However, on reading the talk page it appears that's the intent. Is it not a bit confusing for the newcomer? Are they not likly to think that something is "broken" when they click on a link and end up back where they started? I don't want to change them if that is what everybody wants. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 05:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've confused things a little by hiving off the RER stations to a separate list, List of stations of the Paris RER. (This is for a good cause, because the RER is simply not the same thing as the Métro.) I propose on the just-cited RER list page to redirect all Métro and RER stubs to the appropriate list page, unless there is more than a stub at the station page. On second thoughts, perhaps it would be a better idea to redirect Metro and RER stubs back to the main Metro and RER pages? Then at least the browser finds substantial information and doesn't get into a link loop. In any case, the stubs can easily be revived as and when proper articles are forthcoming. Thoughts? Rollo 22:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The latest. "Best practice" for RER stations is to leave station pages uncreated (ie, appearing as red in List of stations of the Paris RER). When genuinely useful information is forthcoming, the appropriate page can be created with a click. Rollo 22:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tables added as a new format to display stations

Okay, just a quick word to say that I've changed the list into tables format. Unfortunately, that takes a lot of time and I couldn't add all observations about stations yet. However, this will be done later. I simply hadn't the time now to copy and paste everything. Metropolitan 18:43, 16 March 2006 (CET)

Okay I've put back all the past informations. Metropolitan 19:21, 18 March 2006 (CET)

[edit] Past and Future Stations

I think it would be great to add a subsection for Past Stations (Ghost Stations), as on the French page. Also interesting is the table of past & future stations that can be seen on the French wiki, as in on the Haxo article. -- hibou 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)