Talk:Rapid transit/Article name discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is No consensus to move. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is time to make a decision about the name of this, and related, articles and categories.

Proposal

The following articles already have metro in their names (but should consistently be renamed with rapid transit if there is a consensus to keep the name of this article):

Sub-proposal

If a switch to metro is chosen, consistently use the root metro system or plural systems:

Discussion

Ldemery made some good arguments above for renaming this article to metro. In addition to those arguments, there seems to be a clear majority of sources on this subject that uses the term metro. When working on the List of rapid transit systems I have found, and have used, the following sources with an international/global perspective:

Note that all of these use the term metro. And the International Association of Public Transport uses the term metro, and doesn't even mention rapid transit on their website (except for BRT:s, bus rapid transit). Furthermore, books on the subject, listed in the List of rapid transit systems article, uses either the word metro in its title, or subway or underground. None uses rapid transit:

And it is quite obvious that there are a lot more systems in the world that have metro in their name. Rapid transit is mainly used in North America.

Unless other sources are found, metro seems to be the more commonly used term, and the article should therefore be renamed to Metro. -- Kildor (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be neutral on this. Simply south (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose a cursory glance at List of rapid transit systems reveals a significant proportion of the world (not just N. America) that either completely or partially uses an alternative to Metro in the name of their systems. Rapid Transit is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous descriptive catch all term that cannot possibly cause confusion when reading about either a 'metro system' or other systems that are not commonly known as a metro, whereas there are enough systems in that list to justify not confusing a reader with the term metro left right and centre when reading about a subway/underground or mrt system that has never or will never be called a metro. MickMacNee (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I completely understand your arguments. But you have probably noticed that there are systems in the list that have rapid transit in their names. In that case, your argument is also valid against using the term rapid transit. My main point is that all definitions and lists that have a global or international perspective use the term metro and not rapid transit. Unless we can find some significant sources that use rapid transit in the same way, using rapid transit here in Wikipedia is more or less original research (WP:OR). I agree with you that rapid transit is acceptable. But it does not mean that it is the best name of this article. -- Kildor (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Rapid Transit is by no means "unambiguous." Today, at least in documents and literature related to planning that I've found online (e.g. for Detroit, Toronto, Brisbane), rapid transit is used to refer to a menu of public transport improvements that are not confined to rail modes - such as busways, bus rapid transit, enhanced bus and so forth. In other words, rapid transit is used as a generic label for improved public transport before the decision has been made on what to build, or implement.Ldemery (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. ‘Rapid transit’ is both highly geographically specific, and jargon, whereas ‘metro’ is used around the world, even when it does not appear in the system’s name (Transport for London and Storstockholms Lokaltrafiken, for example, both use ‘metro’ to describe systems which are named Underground and Tunelbana respectively). ‘Rapid transit’ is also increasingly vague — in many jurisdictions it can now refer (in actual legal documents) to trams, or even express buses with little or no dedicated infrastructure. David Arthur (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have Tfl used 'Metro'? In the UK, I know of a bus, a car, a transport authority a shopping mall and a newspaper called Metro, but nothing that runs on rails. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this is not TfL but there is the Tyne & Wear Metro which is another metro system. Simply south (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Metro is a bit of an abortion, as it meets some aspects of light rail, such as low frequency, overhead wires and at grade road crossings, whereas it also now has a section of shared running with heavy rail, which I've seen elsewhere defined as a no-no for 'metros', bringing it into commuter rail territory, indeed linking a city to a town miles away. Added to that half of the system looks like a heavy rail system as it was built over old heavy rail lines, and even keeps some of those station buildings. It is unique, Metro was basically a brand name to impress something new and different, in the same sense as West Yorkshire PTE. Certainly no-one from Newcastle when visiting London/Glasgow, asks where the nearest metro station is that's for sure. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Light rail in some aspects can still be considered a metro. For example, the Docklands Light Railway. Simply south (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that illustrates the issue quite well, if you take the UK, of the four systems listed in List of rapid transit systems, the one with Metro in its name transcends three classes, light rail, metro and commuter rail, the one that can be 'considered a metro', DLR, is not listed as a metro in three of the four external lists quoted above to support the use of the word (the fourth doesn't even load being a fansite full of adverts), and the two systems that probably are physically metros in the sense of the paris system, are never called metros in common usage. MickMacNee (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That is hardly an argument for using rapid transit, is it? Tyne&Wear and DLR are borderline cases, and could as well be included as excluded in the list (btw, CityRailTransit does list DLR as metro [1]). The fact that people in London and New York use the words underground/subway for their local transportation system is quite natural, and is not important here. What is important is that metro seems to be the most common word when such systems are mentioned in a global perspective. An international organization for public transport use it, and so does all the available internet based lists on the subject (except Wikipedia). And a number of books... If this article and related lists should use be named rapid transit, we should at least find some external sources supporting that idea. -- Kildor (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Is a dictionary a good enough source for you? Cambridge Dictionary rapid transit adjective, describes a system of fast moving trains in the city - seems to cover precisely all the systems listed in List of rapid transit systems, whereas Metro = noun, an underground electric railway system in some cities, especially in France. Note the difference between adjective and noun, and the addition of underground for Metro. Metro is clearly a name, Rapid Transit in this article and all related articles is an adjective, which cannot confuse anyone. This is not the same as it's use in the name of some systems, and as has been demonstrated time and again, the names given to systems often do not match their classification as rapid transit, light rail, tram or commuter rail. To quote your source: In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube. - UITP. Where there is clearly not a big enough majority use of a noun, then what is wrong with using a dictionary definition to cover all systems, instead of biasing the article to particular parts of the world? MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
1. A dictionary lists words - not names. Metro is clearly a word (a lower-case entry), but also part of the name of some public transport systems. And the same goes for rapid transit. In what way does metro bias the article to particular parts of the world that rapid transit does not?
2. Neither of the rapid transit and metro entries of the Cambridge dictionary covers the subject of this article well. The rapid transit entry includes commuter rail networks, and the metro entry exclude those not underground.
3. While looking at other online dictionary entries, dictionary.com lists rapid transit as a noun. The Oxford online dictionary has an entry for metro, but not for rapid transit. -- Kildor (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It biases artices because of the large areas of the world, including most of Asia, where Metro is not used in the name of the system. That much is obvious from list of rapid transit systems. As for the rest, I fail to see what the argument is then, if both words are confusing as both nouns and adjectives, and for scope and type of system, then why is metro any better than rapid transit. Websites with lists are frankly irrelevent in my mind, as clearly they are using merely one interpretation of the word depending on their dictionary, half of those lists are basically fancruft anyway, nowhere near official sources, all of which quickly point out that Metro is not a universal term. As I was going to say ages ago, this is a problem that has no solution, evident a long time ago on this page. Any more going round the houses is pointless. You won't convince me or I suspect millions of WP readers on this planet that Metro is any more usefull than rapid transit when they are researching the subject. In fact rapid transit is more usefull as it explicitly precludes assumption of any common name. Or we could call it foo and we can all get confused by the same amount. If you think Metro is any more descriptive then you ignore the other use of the word as well, 'urban/metropolitan', around the world. It is a brand name and word that has been distorted and changed according to who uses it where and when, and adds no more clarity than rapid transit by the very arguments you raise. List of urban rail systems is just as meaningless. This is a fruitless exercise in trying to achieve uniformity where there is none. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this up for discussion, is that all sources used for the list of rapid transit systems use the word metro. And the definition used in these articles comes from two sources that also use the word metro, of which one is the international organization for public transportation. Then it seems strange to me using the word rapid transit... Perhaps it is completely pointless to classify the different systems of the world in this article and related lists. But it seems like people show some interest in the subject, and that others have been trying to do the same. When it comes to the global use of metro vs rapid transit, I find "metro" in all parts of the world, whereas "rapid transit" only appears in North America and some parts of Asia. If that matters at all... -- Kildor (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing the descriptive use of rapid transit with the naming use, the description covers all articles in the list, hence list of rapid transit systemsMickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I pointed out that metro is used globally, which cannot be said about rapid transit. And still, if rapid transit is the better and more commonly used term, why isn't there any good source that use it that way? Perhaps there is, but I haven't seen it, yet. UITP, that gathers public transportation companies all over the world, uses the term metro on their website, and in numerous of reports. That is as close we can come to an official source. I also found railway-technology.com, a website with a industry point-of-view. They list projects in four categories: heavy railway, high speed railways, light rail systems, and yes, metros. None of the sources used for the Rapid transit and List of rapid transit systems use the word rapid transit, except for two articles that deals with US-specific systems. But there are plenty more that uses metro. Neither metro or rapid tansit (or subway, underground or whatever) is a universal term. But so far, metro seems to be the more commonly used... -- Kildor (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you not understand why global organisations might want to consolidate on one term rather than keep referring to List of metros, undergrounds, subways, mass transit and rail rapid transit systems ? That fact does not make the word Metro any more understandable by WP users around the world. I am seriously not understanding why you can't appreciate this basic fact. Metro is not a universal term. Rapid transit is an unambiguous descriptive term. In the global context, apart from specialist trade associations who should know what they are talking about and not need any help from WP, common usage of the word Metro means jack shit MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I certainly understand that they want to consolidate on one term. And I notice that they chose metro (as most other sources do).
2. Rapid transit is clearly ambiguous, as many bus networks are described with that term. (metro, subway and underground are also ambiguos, btw)
3. The most important thing is what people in common would use and recognize (WP:NAME). If there are simple facts on this subject (as you suggests) - it should be easy to show some examples... I don't think it is that simple. But there are some examples of official sources, personal websites and books, in the proposal above -- Kildor (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Transit is most certainly not ambiguous. Rail rapid transit or variants thereof are even less ambigous. In terms of WPname, I would say that for the majority of people in all the places in the world I have referred to in many previous statements in here that you keep ignoring, they would not commonly understand the implication behind Metro any more than rapid transit, and in some places again as previously explained, Metro is also given multiple usage. Quoting offical sources is irrelevant in the context of WPname, most normal people aren't members of global public transport authorities. MickMacNee (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been shown that rapid transit can be almost any kind of transportation. Metro is also ambiguous in that way, but there seem to be quite common to use the term bus rapid transit for example. I have given official sources, but also books and private websites, in support of using the term metro. What do you have for rapid transit?
And imagine the following situation: A tourist on vacation in a foreign city comes to a tourist information center and asks for information on public transportation. Does he ask for rapid transit, metro, subway or underground (not knowing the name of the local system)? I guess what most people would use in this situation, is what we should use for this article. -- Kildor (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you just answered your own question, I can envisage many instances where a tourist would not ask for Metro. Like I keep saying, common usage is irrelevant in the case of trying to make Metro an umbrella term for globally oriented articles, due to all the issues raised again and again. Again, the only source I can offer for rapid transit is common sense and lack of any other global term, official sources when they are proffesional associations or fan sites, are not relevant for common usage. As I have also kept saying, I am not advancing rapid transit as globally accepted system name, its use in these articles is purely descriptive, a best solution that does not unduly cause confusion to one part of the world for the convenience of the other. There are no rail rapid transit named systems where I live, but I can still understand the usage here, I didn't immediately think, hang on, the common usage in parts of the world is Metro backed up by this association and that website, I used good old fashioned common sense and my knowledge that WP while being in English is global in coverage. I gave an example earlier, someone from newcastle which actually has a 'Metro' will not go to London and stop a passer by and ask where the nearest Metro station is. On second thoughts I don't think you could assert any claim about what a tourist might ask for based on statistics from official sources, it's a completely cultural issue, hence then need to not uneccessarily bias it one way or the other. It's called neutrality. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"I can envisage many instances where a tourist would not ask for Metro". Yes. But is it your opinion that "rapid transit" would be used more often? And would the tourist understand the answer if metro is given in the answer from the tourist office (or rapid transit)?
WP naming convention is about chosing the most common word. And in my opinion, metro is as neutral as rapid transit is... -- Kildor (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand (all the way through I think). It's like a tourist asking where he can hire a metal carriage with four wheels and an engine. It is not an alternative candidate for a system name, it is a description. As opposed to trying to justify why a tourist would ask where he could hire an automobile as opposed to a car, by trying to cite the common usage of either term. You will never reach a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to throw oil on the fire of looking at reliable sources, but most US federal agencies tend to prefer "rapid transit" over "metro", often using metro to describe a metropolitan area and not a metropolitan transportation system. For example, a quick search at the Federal Railroad Administration website returns 303 hits for "rapid transit" (first five hits include: "...Bay Area Rapid Transit ... Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority...", "... Shaker Heights Rapid Transit ... Staten Island Rapid Transit ...", "... the passenger rail system is an urban rapid transit system ...", "... excludes urban rapid transit operations by rail, such as trollies and subways ..." and "... Rapid transit operations sharing tracks and public crossings ...") and 264 hits for "metro" (first five hits include: "... NY Bronx XMTA METRO ...", "... at the following locations: � Union Station/METRO (Los Angeles)...", and one specific company name "... Metro North Commuter Railroad ..." repeated several times). I see similar count results looking at the Association of American Railroads... 57 for "rapid transit" and 13 for "metro". Slambo (Speak) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, neither FRA nor AAR are authorities for public transportation. For that, there is APTA. On their definitions page [2], the classify metro/subway/rapid transit as heavy rail. If you search for rapid transit or metro on their website, the result is 615-525 in favor of metro. Doing the same on UITP (international) or ERRAC (european) gives 238-55 and 17-0 in favor of metro. -- Kildor (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a broad general name. Metro is not common in all parts of the world. For many, it is simply the name of the Paris Subway. It is not broken so why change? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose For reasons mentoned by MickMacNee ie. many other things called metro but in terms of transport, metro implies fast trains (surface or underground) on rails (grade seperation) but there are schemes in the UK who call themselves metro but aren't at all metro systems such as Swansea Metro which could be classified as rapid transit. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as metro is ambiguous as it can really refer to anything metropolitan. I would ostensibly prefer underground but that is ambiguous too. Rapid transit is the lesser of several evils because it is unambiguous and used across the globe. Reginmund (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to metro!. A summary of my arguments for moving this article to Metro:

  • Metro is the more common word for the public transportation systems described in this article. It is the primary term used by the international organization for public transportation (UITP), leading vehicle manufacturer (Bombardier), and wordwide system lists (UrbanRail.Net), where systems like these are being classified. The interesting thing is that all those use the same term, and that is metro. Obviously, the term metro is clear and unambiguous enough for them to use for this purpose. And these websites are written for a world-wide audience.
  • Many systems over the world that not have metro or rapid transit in their original name are translated using the word metro. There are "metro systems" all over the world, which makes a good chance that people would recognize and understand the term. Rapid transit seems to be used primarily in North America.
  • A google test is difficult to analyze for these terms, since both are used for other things than described in this article. But combining those with "system" would perhaps give an indication on what is the more common:
- 296 000 hits for "metro system" -wikipedia
- 149 000 hits for "rapid transit system" -wikipedia

...combined with train to sort out bus or tram systems:

- 147 000 hits for "metro system" train -wikipedia
- 38 300 hits for "rapid transit system" train -wikipedia

-- Kildor (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you fundementally don't understand the difference between using a term for convenient least biased neutral description and using it because some systems in North America have it in their name. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In what way does WP naming convention suggests that we should select a convenient least biased neutral name of the article? And again, why would that be rapid transit? -- Kildor (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty obvious that WP names should be eliminating bias, maintaining neutrality and using descriptive terminology where there is no accepted common or official usage of a name in the scope of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Rapid transit is the generic term, Metro is not. Rapid transit is descriptive; Metro is derivative (because of early use by the Metropolitan Railway in London). I always like to turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica on these, because they are respected and can't be accused of being North-American-centric. They define rapid transit this way:

system of railways, usually electric, that is used for local transit in a metropolitan area. A rapid transit line may run underground (subway), above street level (elevated transit line), or at street level. Rapid transit is distinguished from other forms of mass transit by its operation on exclusive right-of-way, with no access for other vehicles or for pedestrians. See elevated transit line; mass transit; subway.

Their entry for Metro?

See "subway".

There is a separate article for subway, none for Metro. -- Cecropia (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, finally a source that favor the use of rapid transit instead of metro! Does anybody know when the article was written? I have a feeling that the article is somewhat outdated. The so much longer article "mass transit" mention some events, none later than 1983. The urban mass transit articles of the Encyclopedia Britannica yearbooks in the 1990-ies seem to use the word metro instead (i.e. [3]), not even mentioning rapid transit*:
Worldwide metro and light rail transit (LRT) systems continued to abound. Los Angeles opened its new Metro Red Line at the end of January and its Metrolink commuter line to Riverside in June and planned to open the fully automated minimetro Green Line in 1995. Metro extensions opened in 1993 were reported from as far afield as Berlin, Calcutta, Lisbon, Naples, Shanghai, and Tokyo. A host of other cities, including Amsterdam, Cairo, Mexico City, and Omsk, Russia, were constructing new LRT or metro extensions, while other cities planned new or further lines to existing networks. The New York (City) Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced a plan to introduce its first braille subway map for the visually impaired.
And about rapid transit beeing generic and descriptive: It is too generic. Rapid transit is more often used for other modes of transportation, as BRT anr PRT:s. Metro is also used in that way, but to a lesser extent. Metro is the more specific word used for what is described in this article. This article itself says that In most of the world, these systems are known as a "Metro.". The definition used in this article is in fact a definition of metro. -- Kildor (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
By default, rapid transit, from at least the end of the 19th century, has meant rail rapid transit; it needs no modifier. You cite BRTs and PRTS to "prove" the term is "too generic." If it were that generic you wouldn't need the modifiers "bus" or "personal." The terms BRT and PRT were coined relatively recently in order to grab some of the positive connotations of rapid transit for transportation modes that are really not. -- Cecropia (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Many jurisdictions now use ‘rapid transit’ as a catch-all term incorporating ‘bus rapid transit’, ‘light-rail rapid transit’, ‘heavy-rail rapid transit’ and many other options, and do so in formal legal documents as well as in promotional contexts. Quite frequently, a government will announce funding for ‘rapid transit’ — with no qualifiers — and the end result is an express bus route. David Arthur (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
See the current online Britannica. This is their current definition. -- Cecropia (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

There are guidelines for this (Wikipedia:Naming conventions):

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

And more (Wikipedia:Naming conflict):

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).
Proper nouns
The three key principles are:
* The most common use of a name takes precedence; <cut>

As what I've seen in dictionaries, metro and rapid transit are proper nouns. And therefore, we should choose the most common used name. However, the procedure is different if the name is descriptive (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season). Personally, I don't think that apply to this article.

There are more than one common name that can be used for this article. But if we can settle which one is the more common, we should use that name. Of course, there is a lot more to take into consideration. But we should first settle if this article is to be named with a proper noun, or given a descriptive name. -- Kildor (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also from the naming conflict page as a reason for continued dispute and hence not a simple settlement based on 'common usage' of a noun : * The "official" name is not unambiguous;. To say that Metro as an official name is unambiguous is patently ridiculous as can be seen from the list article MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you are one step ahead. If we agree on that we should select a proper noun (yes?), the next step is to find the most common word. The step you are referring to, is a final step to use when the procedure have failed. The guidelines are quite clear on that we should select the most common used term. -- Kildor (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A proper noun is not suitable due to the large areas of the world that do not use it. A few google searches are not going to prove anything for such a massive scope. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have shown so much more than a simple google search. Secondly, the lack of a global universal name is not enough to rule out the naming conventions of choosing the most common word. Compare the Gasoline/Petrol naming conflict for instance. The WP article is named Gasoline since it is the most common word, but large parts of the world use the other name. That fact that metro is not used in some parts of the world is not an argument to select another name. -- Kildor (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you should try and hold up gasoline as a supporting argument, it's false none the less seeing as there are but two definitions of gasoline in the entire world. By my count we could get at least 5 different names for Metro around the world if you want to play it that way. That would make for an interesting lead sentence and a colourfull collection of hatnotes for the Rapid Transit article. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh now would you look at that, it seems I have already described the exact nature of the article already. Gee whizz, I should get a job at NASA. MickMacNee (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead of the article already has 5 different names, so what is your point? My point was that WP naming conventions does not mean that the most common word should not stand back for a third (or sixth) less common alternative in order make everyone happy. -- Kildor (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support You want the article to be about an adjective? Huh? How about a noun? Unless I counted wrong rapid transit appears only six times in the list of metro systems, while metro appears 88 times. This isn't even close. The reasons for the move appear to be overwhelmingly compelling. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Read this page in it's entirity please. Rapid Transit is not being used because of the name of a few systems. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No. But we should use the most common name. And the count on current system names is one indication on that metro is the more commonly used term. -- Kildor (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Observations: I've been watching this unfold so here's my first reflection. At the start I was swayed both ways with each added comment. Rapid transit sounds like an Americanism, but has the advantage of being more succinct when performing research—an advantage in my book. OTOH, Metro...? is a terminology that works verbally when stranded in unknown foreign cities. Here are my two pieces.

  • If the article(s) stay as "Rapid transit", then update the opening paragraph to read something like:
    • Metro, or Rapid transit systems are [...dictionary definition]. [...Short introduction...]. Colloquially such systems maybe called the Underground, subway, U-Bahn/S-Bahn, or [...xyz...] in different areas of the World.
  • If the article(s) change to "Metro*", then:
    • Refer to Metro system[s], instead of Metros. To my ear, the artificial pluralisation™ sounds unencyclopedic and rather strange. (I find the same is with the American-centric use of Legos, instead of the correct name Lego™).
    • In this case, the article name would probably be "Metro system", and "Metro" itself could be the disambig for all of the other meanings.

Hope that's enough food-for-thought for the moment. —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Using "metro systems" in article textes is a good idea (although metros appears as an accepted plural form in dictionaries). But when it comes to the article name, I believe it is better just metro. Simply because it is the most common use. -- Kildor (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedure. I was trying to initiate an article naming procedure above, according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict. What we have so far (in my opinion):

  • This article can be named with a proper noun
  • The most common use is metro
  • A majority of systems describes themselves with the word metro (self-identifying), or at least far more than any other name
  • The "official" name is metro, as defined by the internation organisation for public transport (UITP), also used by a leading manufacturer, global public transportation industry news webiste, and so on...
  • There are systems named metro on every continent, whereas rapid transit is used in North America and parts of Asia

But we also have the following:

  • Metro is ambiguous, in the way that in is short for metropolitan. That is not a big problem, since metro systems are metropolitan.
  • Rapid transit is ambigious, in the way that it can stand for almost any kind of "rapid" transportation. A very common use is bus rapid transit. Metro is also ambiguous in that way, but to a lesser extent.

We should apply the WP naming conventions in this discussion. And I believe they suggests that we should use metro as a name for this article. -- Kildor (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, the entire system is Metro. DC uses "Metrorail" and "Metrobus", and LA uses "Metro Rail" and "Metro Bus". --NE2 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes (unfortunately). And there is Dallas Area Rapid Transit that has everything but rapid transit. Both metro and rapid transit are often used in a way that is not consistent with this article. And regarding transportation, there are well-established use of bus rapid transit, personal rapit transit and group rapid transit ([4]). If this page is going to have a neutral and descriptive name, perhaps Rail rapid transit is a better option. But that is certainly not a common name... -- Kildor (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You are using several flawed lines argument to justify what you want to do. You talk about what Britannica said in articles during the '90s, ignoring that their 2007 representation is that rapid transit is the appropriate term, not even having an article for "Metro." You distorted my point about Metropolitan, which refers to the Metropolitan Railway in London, not the a metropolis. Further, "rapid transit" is often not metropolitan, a term which covers a city and its surrounding areas ("suburbs," "exurbs"). Rapid transit is more often than not a creature of the corporate city, therefore distinctly urban than metropolitan.
For some reason, you wish to bend the meaning of Metro to suit your desire, but your arguments and your ignorance of such a major system as New York from your parochial perspective have already been shown by your argumentation in trying to assign a 1904 date to New York City in List of Rapid Transit Systems. You are arguing from the specific ("I like the name 'Metro'") to the general ("therefore I will fish and bend and justify until I get my way"). -- Cecropia (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Britannica rapid transit article must then be false, since it specifically says that rapid transit is metropolitan... -- Kildor (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

The problem is that "rapid transit", in addition to having originated as a somewhat generic adjective (from the now-archaic phrase "rapid transit railroad"), now has considerable cachet as a brand, and thus is continually invoked for all manner of things, as a means of selling projects to the public. Bus rapid transit is the clearest example; it can't be said to have any of the characteristics of "rapid transit", but describing a project as BRT gets votes and government dollars, not necessarily in that order.

I remain opposed to any renaming to any variant of "metro"; its drawbacks are even worse than "rapid transit"'s; neither term is universally commonly used, but "metro" is far more ambiguous (the current disambiguation page gives what I believe is undue weight to the transportation-related meanings and not enough to the variants on metropolitan area). —CComMack (t–c) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The advantage with rapid transit is that it is pretty clear that the article is about public transport, which is necessarily not the case with metro as a name. On the other hand, rapid transit can be about almost any kind of public transport, wheras metro is more specific to the subject of this article (try a google search on "a rapid transit system" and "a metro system"!).
Going back to the naming conventions, that say we should select the more common used name. But since metro is ambiguous, we should try another common name. The other candidates, subway, underground, and rapid transit, are also ambiguous. Then we could go for the official name (metro is used by UITP), or the self-identifying name (metro is the most common system name). Or we could add more precison. There are a few options that add precision:
  • Rail rapid transit
  • Metro system
  • Metro (public transport)
Since Metro redirects to this article, I'm not sure that it is really necessary to add precision. But if so, we could have Metro to be the current disambiguation page, and rename this article to Metro (public transport):
  • Rapid transit → Metro (public transport)
  • Metro (disambiguation) → Metro
Rail rapid transit is a unambiguous option, but is not common in use. Metro system is quite ok, but feels a litte bit as an invented word. Metro (public transport) reflects the most common use, and (public transport) adds necessary precision. -- Kildor (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion seems reasonable and productive to me. David Arthur (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "rapid transit" is well understood. Wikipedia policy is that, if one wants to change the name of an article, the prejudice is favor of retaining the existing name; that is, the burden is on those wanting to change the name to demonstrate effectively that it is necessary. Or put another way: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Cecropia (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "rapid transit" is often understood, but it is also very often misunderstood. There have been a lot of bus and light rail systems added to the List of rapid transit systems, since people think (in good faith) that their system is rapid transit. Rapid transit is too generic, much because of the nowadays more common use of bus rapid transit, but also that rapid transit can be interpreted as any transit mode that is rapid. This is apperant from recent news articles where new public transport options are discussed. Below are three examples from three different english-speaking countries, where rapid transit is referred to as any mode of public transport:
Of course, that problem also applies to the use of Metro, with examples from Los Angeles and Washington D.C. But it seems that the use of Metro is less generic and more specific, and that can be seen when examining the hits from a google search on "a rapid transit system" and "a metro system".
There is no presumption to keep in moving procedures - rather the opposite (WP:MGA). But if there are objections, a consensus is needed in order to move. And in order to establish consensus, I think we should discuss how the current WP naming conventions can be applied to this case. -- Kildor (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And when reaching a consensus, the prejudice is toward rentention. Now you are using another diversion is your personal renaming crusade--appealing to the "naming conventions" issue. More lawyering to attempt to get your way. And in your claims for the necessity to "reach consensus" you seem to be ignoring that the consensus as expressed here is clearly against you. -- 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecropia (talk • contribs)
I would say there is no consensus at all for the moment! And I believe that the WP guidlines and conventions exist for a reason. -- Kildor (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article needs to re-titled "Metro"

If the article title change from "Metro" to "Rapid Transit" was intended to secure a "dialect neutral" location, then that goal was not achieved.

"Rapid Transit" is a flagrant - and rather archaic - Americanism. This bit of dated jargon is not "dialect neutral."

"Metro" is about as close as we can come to a "dialect neutral" term between "subway" (U.S.) and "underground" (U.K.).

The article states - correctly - that "In most parts of the world these systems are known as a 'metro.'"

So why do we insist on outdated American jargon ?

The world's first urban railway was London's "Metropolitan Railway," opened in 1863. The lines on opened in the U.S. were called "elevated railways," "elevateds" or "els." Liverpool called its viaduct line an "overhead railway."

I don't know when the term "Underground" came into use in London. The "honor," so to speak, of being the first city to use the term "underground" for . . . well, an underground railway . . . might well belong to Budapest. The line opened in 1896 was called the "földalatti" . . . and that means "underground."

Vienna called its steam-worked urban railway, opened in 1898, the "Stadtbahn" (or "city railway"). Berlin's first underground railway, opened 1902, was called the "untergrundbahn," or U-Bahn, and this became the "standard" label in German-speaking countries.

However, in 1900, the first line in Paris was opened by an undertaking called "Compagnie du chemin de fer métropolitain de Paris." The "chemin de fer métropolitain" - ("Metropolitan Railway") was borrowed from the name of . . . yes . . . London's Metropolitan Railway. The French company became known as "le métropolitain," or "le métro" for short.

The French term "métropolitain" (or "métro") was borrowed by other Latin-based languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese; "Metrou" in Romanian) - but also by Russian ("Metropoliten") and other Slavic languages. It also became . . . well, "de rigeur" . . . in other countries as well. About the only exception in the 'Latin" world is Argentina, which uses "subte," an abbreviation for "subterraneo."

As noted above, German-speaking countries use "U-bahn." Denmark uses "untergrutbane" in general - but "Metro" for the one in Copenhagen. Sweden uses "T-bana" (short for "Tunnelbana") and Norway uses "T-bane" (short for "Tunnelbane") As for the "others" . . . virtually every other country using the Latin (or Cyrillic) alphabet uses "metro" (the one exception I could find was Bahasa Indonesia). This will quickly become apparent if you click through "in other languages" on the Rapid transit page. All but the first line in Budapest are called "Metro."

It's "Metro" in Greek . . . but I'll admit that Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese use "underground railway" in those respective languages.

Although the term "rapid transit" was used in the U.S. as early as 1892, it has not been used in any other country. By no means is it "dialect neutral."

So, why not "metro?" Ldemery 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page to the suggested title, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapid transit → Metropolitan rapid transit system — these things keep being referred to as "systems" —Ewlyahoocom 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - Then its not the title that needs changing, its the content. Reginmund 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No explanation given as to why the unwieldy title proposed is an improvement. --DAJF 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please refer to that section right above this one? (Maybe indenting will make it more obvious.) Ewlyahoocom 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nobody in their right mind is going to expect it to be listed under that title, with or without "System" added. What next, "Terrestrial mobile telephony system" in place of "Mobile phone"? --Squiggleslash 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please try to remain polite in these discussions. Dekimasuよ! 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The discussion above advocates a return to metro, not an OR combination title. — AjaxSmack 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was the subject of intense discussion in 2004-5, and the result was that "rapid transit" gained consensus as a clearly scoped, US/Commonwealth English-neutral, fairly commonly used term. I don't see a compelling argument to overturn that consensus. —CComMack (t–c) 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See section below. Simply south 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope

Though reading this does raise a question on scope. Under the current title, it should include all forms of rapid transit, not just metro systems. Other things to be included are Light rail and bus rapid transit, for example. E.g. O-Bahn Busway and Docklands Light Railway (which is not a tram system). Simply south 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone agrees what to count as ‘rapid transit’; to some authorities it is merely a U.S. synonym for ‘metro’, to others it incorporates metros and high-grade tramways only, to still others it includes bus routes that are slightly better than usual. (The Docklands Light Railway, as a metro service, counts by any standard, but others are less clear.) The question is, would this article (which was once named ‘Metro’) genuinely be more informative if it covered buses and trams as well as metros? David Arthur 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Whether or not one feels that this article should properly be called "rapid transit", or if the article entitled "rapid transit" should have a different scope, I think we can all agree that having an article with this scope is useful. I'm not saying that it's impossible to improve on the status quo with a better set of article scopes and titles than we have now, just that we haven't come up with one yet. —CComMack (t–c) 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not split this then? Have one on rail rapid transit (or appropriate name) and another on the different types of rapid transit in general. Simply south 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to re-titled "Metro" - II

"CComMack" states, above, that "rapid transit" gained consensus a few years back as "clearly scoped, US/Commonwealth English-neutral, fairly commonly used term."

The problem here is that this consensus was based on incorrect perceptions (or conclusions). The article itself might be "clearly scoped," but as "David Arthur" notes, "not everyone agrees what to count as ‘rapid transit’." The term "rapid transit" is not "US/Commonwealth English-neutral," because it is a flagrant, although dated, Americanism. It is also not "fairly commonly used." The term "rapid transit" fell out of use in the US from the early '70s. The "rapid transit" label is retained in the titles of a handful of operators (e.g. Bay Area Rapid Transit), and of course in the history books. Other than that, what the article describes is now called "heavy rail" or "heavy rail transit" in the U.S. (among planners and politicians). It's been a long time since I've heard any "non-specialist" refer to a U.S. heavy rail system as "rapid transit." Depending on the city, people say "the subway," "the elevated," "the el," "the metro," and so forth. In the San Francisco Bay Area, you can hear people say, "the BART."

In order to have a top-grade article, there are many decisions that will need to be made regarding this article. The title is just one of them. Ldemery 04:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to re-titled "Metro" - III

Unlike certain Wikipedia editors (and at least one editor . . .), I am NOT willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" when it comes to improving this article.

Now, having said that, I reiterate: This article needs to be retitled something else besides "Rapid transit," and that "something else" needs to be "Metro."

The most recent city to use the term "Rapid transit" is Detroit (...of all places...), which has begun yet another transit planning project. Online sources describe three potential "rapid transit" corridors - but the modes being considered are "Light rail/Modern streetcar," "bus rapid transit," and upgraded conventional bus. Note that "heavy rail" or "metro" is not under consideration.

See Detroit Transit Options for Growth Study (DTOGS) web page, (URL: http://www.dtogs.com/main.html), and also "Model D - DDOT seeking public input on 3 rapid transit lines" (URL: http://www.modeldmedia.com/developmentnews/dtogs10307.aspx).

The choice of "Rapid transit" as the title for this article needs to be revisited. Ldemery 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to stop by to review the discussion and offer my thoughts on the proposal. My initial thought is that this is much like the article naming discussions held on Talk:Train station; a discussion that regularly sees a majority of those involved opting to keep the existing name. So far, I see a majority of editors involved in this discussion prefer that this article remain at Rapid transit, with some talk that the article content needs a little work and is a higher priority task than the article name. Further, when a discussion meets Godwin's Law, it's time to stop and have a cup of tea (my selection today is a cup of Irish Breakfast Tea from Twinings).
As to my opinion on the merits of this article's name, when I hear the word "metro" images of the Paris Métro are instantly formed in my mind, which is not really a generic meaning of the term. I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles, so when I hear "rapid transit", the images in my mind are usually of the buses in all of the cities that I've visited or lived in, probably because they were run by an organization called Los Angeles Rapid Transit District. So to me, neither name is optimal, but considering the previous discussions on this topic, I'm content to use the current name.
The archives where this was discussed some time ago were at Talk:Metro; I've moved it to Talk:Rapid transit/Archive since Metro is currently a redirect to this article. Slambo (Speak) 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
One further note on this topic on the difficulty in finding the best name for this article... driving to school yesterday I realized that the bus system here in Madison is called the Madison Metro; since there are no commuter rail options at all in this state capital (there used to be a streetcar system until the 1920s and our current mayor wants to bring them back), there is little danger of confusion locally. Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Are there any further arguments for or against a particular name? It's been four days since my last comment which itself was two days after the last comment from another editor. Unless there are any further objections, I think we can keep this article at its current name. Slambo (Speak) 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Rail rapid transit? Simply south 19:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Rapid transit" is 1.) an Americanism, 2.) to significant degree archaic, and - most important - 3.) is used today with explicit reference to rail "and" bus modes. The current article title should therefore be changed ... to something else ... Ldemery 05:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Metro" is equally ambiguous as it also applies to both rail and non-rail systems (e.g. rail: Paris Metro, Cairo Metro; non-rail: Madison Metro, METRO Transit, Metro Transit (Halifax)). The suggestion of "Rail rapid transit" seems the best to me so far as it explicitly specifies that it relates only to rail systems. Slambo (Speak) 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like rapid rail transit is more common. --NE2 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For an alternative name suggestion, see below. Simply south 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rapid transit (rail transport)

The way i see it is that there are many forms of Rapid transit, particularly rail and bus. Maybe this should be moved to Rapid transit (rail transport) to distinguish them, or a better name. Then change the rapid transit redirect into an article in what could be described as rapid transit, the different forms. So i suggest both a move and a split if possible. Simply south 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between how a term is defined and how the public uses it; for the latter, we basically have to wait for the dictionaries. (See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms.) The only dictionary definitions I can find only list this usage or say it's "usually" this: [5][6][7] If anyone has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, please report on what they have. --NE2 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Thinking about it, I don't see any reason to have separate articles for metro and subway, as they both cover the same concept (metro may be more open on the light rail end, though Boston's Green Line has street-running sections and is still considered a subway line). Is there a term that will adequately cover everything without having a different meaning in different areas? How about something like urban rapid transit? Or maybe separate articles on urban heavy rail and urban light rail, with subway and metro redirecting to the former but with a note that the latter exists and may be what the user wants? There would be links to disambiguation for all the terms, all of which have other uses (except maybe streetcar). Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 11:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility for tram/streetcar - urban surface rail? --SPUI (talk) 11:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting problem. I've seen the terms used interchangeably in some places, while in others they have distinct and separate meanings. I haven't worked with urban railways enough to see much of a difference between subway and metro, but I like the possibility of combining them into heavy rail vs. light rail (btw, there is a light rail article to consider as well). I think that the best solution may be to start a urban railway article that has subsections for each of the different types, much like I've tried to do on passenger car. Take the common information from these subarticles and put it in the summary article and include a brief description of each of the detail articles in the summary article. slambo 14:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

We'd still need to figure out what to put the detail articles under. Metro describes the actual characteristics of a system, while subway mainly summarizes what's there and covers usage - seems like a clear case of merging to me. The main issue is what to merge it with, and where to draw the line between metro/subway and light rail/streetcar/tram. Grade separation seems like a decent cutoff - systems that have characteristics of both could be covered in each. I'm not sure how common grade crossings on a subway-type system are (as opposed to Boston's Green Line, which is more of a partly underground streetcar line) - the New York City Subway had one until the 1980s on the Canarsie Line.

Thinking about it a bit more, maybe it would be best to have one article about all urban rail (other than commuter rail). Maybe that could include current characteristics, and we could have separate articles about the history of each type.

There's also elevated railway. --SPUI (talk) 15:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that there's been little discussion, I'm going to start working on my ideas at urban rail transit. All are welcome to join me. --SPUI (talk) 06:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've merged from metro, subway, light rail and tram. Streetcar hasn't been done yet. I'm thinking this is a bit too ambitious, and light and heavy rail should be separated. I'll probably go with urban light rail and urban heavy rail for now, though that may change. Stuff about systems in general (as well as integration with regional rail) will stay in urban rail transit. I'd like some comments, if anyone's awake. --SPUI (talk) 07:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Specifically, I'd like some comments on the opening section, which is the part that's not merged from other articles. --SPUI (talk) 07:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've done the split into urban heavy rail and urban light rail, with urban rail transit covering general aspects and terminology. Some work still needs to be done, including possibly moving a few things back to urban rail transit. I also merged streetcar and elevated railway. I think now I'm ready to do the redirecting. It might actually be a good idea to move urban light rail back to light rail, as there's no reason it shouldn't include interurbans. --SPUI (talk) 09:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And done, though some cleanup is needed. Interurban is kept as is for now; do people think that should be merged (with the Australian usage being a note up top to go to regional rail)? --SPUI (talk) 09:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's now some discussion about whether there should be a split between streetcars and higher-speed light rail. Both sides of the argument are at Talk:Streetcar#Streetcar vs. Light Rail; it would be nice to get more opinions. --SPUI (talk) 17:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected for poll

User:SPUI has merged this article and subway into a common article called urban heavy rail. Should Metro be kept as a discrete article or be merged into a different article? I have protected this page during the poll as SPUI was persisting in making this article a redirect without consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with subway

  1. --SPUI (talk) 21:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. The articles as they stand really are duplicate descriptions of the same thing. I'm tempted to mention the broad gray area between light and heavy rail too, but that's a big can of worms (oops, I mentioned it). --iMb~Meow 21:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's definitely an area to look at. The best way may be to simply mention those in both, as a hybrid between the two types. --SPUI (talk) 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that is a quite different issue. The streetcar/tram - light rail - heavy rail debate hinges around the need to give different names to segments of what is in reality a continuous spectrum, and is therefore always going to be problematic. But metro and subway are terms describing the same place in the spectrum, and (at least to me) its pretty clear there should be only one article. -- Chris j wood 10:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merge it. Fight the WP-article-fragmentation trend. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merge. The terms metro and subway (when used in the generic, rail related sense) are simply different vernacular terms for the same animal, and there should only be one generic article. -- Chris j wood 10:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Merge. Although the term "Subway" could also mean a pedestrian tunnel! In Germany a certain Metro Corporation has been through the courts to stop german public transport companies using the term, usually for bus or tram services. e.g. "MetroBus or MetroTram". Lucikly Metro AG lost!! Maybe Urban Transport (Subway) as a prefix would be better?? IsarSteve 10:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  • Comment - the name of the merged article is not what is important; that can be changed at any time, and does merit further discussion (rapid transit has been suggested). What is important is whether this should be merged with subway, which was basically a fork of this article. --SPUI (talk) 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unprotected. Poor form, Cecropia, at least ASK someone else to do it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The change wasn't an "all-of-a-sudden-thing", there was an attempt to find a consensus first (see above). Granted, the comment time was rather short, but SPUI did attempt to get others involved (posting notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains for example). My initial reaction was in support, but I haven't thoroughly researched urban rail systems as much as other editors here. slambo 21:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've created Urban heavy rail/Temp-Metro and Urban heavy rail/Temp-Subway which, I hope, are the pre-merge versions of the two corresponding articles. (If not, I'd be grateful if someone could do the necessary.) This should allow us to judge the two on their merits. From what I can see, I'd favor a merge, unless there's darker, deeper issues at play that I'm unaware of. –Hajor 21:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like the premerge versions to me. I don't know of any deeper issues, unless my want to remove duplication can be considered that. --SPUI (talk) 21:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)