Talk:Subway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Subway is not Australian English. We use the term underground railway to refer to the very few kilometres of it in Australia. Graham Chapman

Oooh, you'll get an argument with SJK on that. For the record, I agree with you - though the Melbourne underground section is always just called "the city loop" or simply "the loop". ---Robert Merkel
Yes, in Sinney it's just the City Circle. I've never heard anyone here use the term "subway". Graham Chapman

A subway in both the UK and North America is a pedestrian tunnel that goes under a road. It is? Being a native North American, I don't know of anyone who uses that term for that meaning. RickK 22:59, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Streetcars

This page is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars

For reference purposes, here is a listing of some of the WP articles which relate to streetcars. Please add to the list for project for working purposes.

[edit] User: Vaoverland

I am from Richmond, Virginia, where Frank J. Sprague is credited with creating the first successful electric trolley-powered streetcar system on some of our 7 hills in 1887-1888. The last streetcars operated here in 1949. However, Richmond has plans underway here for a heritage streetcar system, such as currently described in the Wikipedia article tram. I hope we can have some fun here. Vaoverland 23:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] terminology, U.S. vs others

When working on articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, we have been confronted with a problem in major differences in terminology used around the world. This is going to come up in this WikiProject as well.

Here are 2 examples already:

  • streetcar Should this really be redirected to tram, which is an obscure usage in US? I have never heard the term tram used here except referring to some small rubber-tired people movers used for parking shuttles at places like theme parks and major events.
  • subway should this really be redirected to metro, an inapplicable usage in US? The only time I hear metro used here is occasionally for the formal or slang name of a subway system, such as Metro in Washington, DC.

How can we incorporate the differences and educate everyone?

Comments on the above, anyone? Vaoverland 22:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think if the article is talking about a system in an American city, then we should say streetcar. Tram simply isn't used in the United States. Ditto with metro. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is my thinking also. I think we should have articles under subway and streetcar which indicate to SEE metro and SEE tram respectively for the non-North American version, and vice versa, if that is the proper way to differentiate. This would help readers find what they are looking for. This approach would allow us to pull out most of the U.S. related content in each article, and make room for more photos and content. I think the next step would be to post this on the talk pages for tram and metro, and solicit comments and help from other writers to be discussed here. Vaoverland 19:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It appear we have a quorum, so I will make it so, and we'll seee what we hear. Vaoverland 20:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Aside from nomencalture differences, tram, streetcar, trolley car, light rail and some other things are not equivalent terms, especially in the US experience. As to Metro and Subway, these are difficult. "Metro" has gained some acceptance in the US, but is not as refined a definition as in Europe and not necessarily used in the same fashion. For example, there is the concept of "pre-Metro," a line served by light-rail and built with the explicit concept that it may be upgraded to full Metro in the future. I will start an article Subway (rapid transit) (to distinguish it from passenger subways and edible subways) to try to hash this out. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

Great! Please join us in WikiProject Streetcars, which will include subways. I have lost of neat stuff to add which I came across while working on other articles. Vaoverland 20:58, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the subway article as subway (rapid transit) then while dab-ing it, I saw that almost all the links to subway meant the transit kind, so subway is now the main page and the dab is at subway (disambiguation). I will also break out streetcar to an article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible merge with Metro?

See Talk:Metro --SPUI (talk) 11:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected for poll

No reason for a separate poll here; see Talk:Metro. --SPUI (talk) 21:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turned into a disambiguation page

User:SPUI turned this page into a hard redirect to Urban heavy rail, but there are far more meanings to "Subway" than just that, so I've turned the page into a disambiguation page and added two more meanings of subway.

Atlant 12:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call, but there's also a previously-existing Subway (disambiguation) from when this was an article on U.S. metros, which should be merged in as well. David Arthur 13:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll merge that in now...

Atlant 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! 'Hope I got it all correct, but if not, I'm sure someone will be bold!

Atlant 14:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:SPUI wrote the following on my personal talk page; I'll move it here so everyone sees it:

I don't see a benefit to this change. The vast majority of incoming links to subway, if not all, refer to its transit usage. If the disambig stays, these all have to be changed. --SPUI (talk) 16:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may well be that the vast majority of links are referring to subway as some kind of rapid transit, but it doesn't automatically follow that either of the following are true:

  • The links are referring exclusively to heavy rail rapid transit (as you forced with your redirect), or that
  • The users coming through "subway" are themselves referring to heavy rail rapid transit.

And even if the links are referring to heavy rail transit, we would still need to eventually get around to editing them all to point to heavy rail transit rather than your hypothetical subway redirect page.

I think that the situation as it stands right now is quite acceptable, and over time, we can fix the links to avoid the dab page as we evaluate each link.

Atlant 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And even if the links are referring to heavy rail transit, we would still need to eventually get around to editing them all to point to heavy rail transit rather than your hypothetical subway redirect page.
Not true at all. There is a reason redirects are here. It's so we can use them. "Subway" is the term in many areas, and is being used properly on the articles that use it. The vast majority of uses are about rapid transit.
Also, I suggest a read through Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Fixing_links_to_disambiguated_topics. You were supposed to fix all the incoming links when making the disambig. However, it's kind of good that you didn't, or we'd likely have a much bigger revert war, as people check their watchlists and say "hey, isn't this a subway?" --SPUI (talk) 16:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for being blunt for a moment, but it's exactly crap like "There is a reason redirects are here" that gets you into these messes in the first place. Sure, the redirects work today, but unedited, they eventually decay into double-redirects which don't work. It might have been smarter to not have changed this page into a hard redirect in the first place; it had good content that you removed in the April-21 edit.

I'd be happy to fix all the links, but I'm not going to do it today. And if others wanted to help, I would welcome the help. Your opinion on how Wiki should be structured ISN'T the be-all and end-all, even though you frequently like to impose your opinion unilaterally and without much (or even any!) public debate.

Atlant 18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirects don't "decay into double-redirects". When you move a page, you see what links there, and fix the double redirects, as the message tells you to do when you move it. --SPUI (talk) 21:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the "removed" stuff in the April 21 edit was merged into rapid transit (what little wasn't redundant). --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ummm.... what kind of argument is that? We shouldn't use redirects because they decay into double-redirects? It's not too difficult to follow the instructions when moving a page and fix the links. SPUI's right, the disambig page was the right way to go since not everyone uses the word subway to refer to the same thing. AngryParsley 21:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decaying redirects

This is pretty funny. I suggested that redirects eventually "decay" into double-redirects, and two folks (User:SPUI and User:AngryParsley) assured me that I was full of it.

Strangely enough though, this page is NOW a double-redirect away from Rapid transit and things that link to "Subway" no longer end up routed to the right place. (If you don't believe me, try it. Right now, you'll end up at the page where Urban heavy rail redirects to Rapid transit.)

Sorry, folks, but anyone who doesn't agree with the fact that bits rot when left unattended hasn't ever worked with real software, databases, and what-have-you, and Wikipedia is definitely a large-scale example of both real software and real databases.

I guess you guys will now have to go back and fix all thos nasty links after all. Bon chance!

Atlant 15:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously someone hadn't fixed double redirects properly. --SPUI (T - C) 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously. And it happens all the time. Which is why relatively-gratuitous moves are a bad idea.
Atlant 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This should be a redirect to rapid transit

That seems to be by far the most common usage of the term. For instance a Google search for London subway turns up only one match out of the first 100 (if I counted properly), and that is for the restaurant, not even for the underpass. --SPUI (T - C) 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not true at all, rapid transit is just a list of different forms of... rapid transit, buses, trains, plains, etc..., the most common usage of subway is in reference to the nyc subway system, try googling subway the first 7 or 8 pages of results are literally for the mta, if anything, it should redirect to New York City Subway, and you can disambiguate from there--71.249.1.156 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And also, this is one case where a Google search is unlikely to truly reflect common usage - people are far more likely to write a website dedicated to a rapid transit network than to a pedestrian underpass, but in actual day-to-day usage in London a subway is always an underpass. To my mind there are four roughly equal meanings here: Rapid transit, underpass, NYC Subway and Subway restaurants. Disambiguation is the way forward! — SteveRwanda 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree strongly with making this page a hard-redirect. There are way too many meanings for the word "subway" to just blindly redirect this to an article about subway trains anywhere. In particular, a person speaking Commonwealth English (or at least London English) would almost certainly mean an underground pedestrian passage. Many Americans outside of the few cities that have old heavy-rail transit are likely to mean the corporation that sells sandwiches.
Atlant 11:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing about the 'corporation that sells sandwiches' is that all over the world, if you walk into a subway (food service corporation) you see.. wait for it... pictures of the nyc subway system, so again.. most common meaning--71.249.1.156 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The decor of the chain proves nothing, especially given their area of origin.
Atlant 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should stay a redirect. ONUnicorn 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would it be worthwhile to create an actual article at Subway (rail), as a compromise? Rapid transit doesn't deal directly with the subject matter, and New York City Subway is hardly the only subway in the world. Surely we can find something to say about subways. Luna Santin 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No. We don't split articles for the same concept based on dialect of English. See elevator and lift. --SPUI (T - C) 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • We do however have seperate articles, for completely unrelated topics, for instance frog and animal, Mars and Planet--71.249.1.156 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course we do. But subway is a term for rapid transit. Major parts of subway systems run above ground. --SPUI (T - C) 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the chicken, the egg, etc..

A subway is a form a mass transit, mass transit is not a form of subway, your logic is inverted--71.249.1.156 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of rapid transit systems

Completely irrelevant content, has nothing to do with subway, subways, or anything like that, if you want to create Rapid transit (disambiguation), you can put it there--71.249.1.156 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not to mention, this edit, coupled with the fact that you created Subway (rail) as a redirect to Rapid transit is not just misleading, but wrong, as Rapid Transit does not = a form of subway--71.249.1.156 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, rapid transit is a name for the type of "heavy rail" that is sometimes called a subway. --SPUI (T - C) 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • no, it's not, saying it doesn't make it true, neither does creating a redirect--71.249.1.156 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • See above. --SPUI (T - C) 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment - attempted resolution

This debate was added as an request for comment "should subway redirect to rapid transit or should it be a disambiguation?". I've been reading through the various talk pages (here, as well as Talk:Metro) to try and make a sense of this mess.

I'm going to try and only deal with this page (and whether or not it should be a hard redirect to rapid transit) — we can sort out the problems with metro, urban light rail, urban heavy rail, rapid transit, streetcar and all their cousins and stepsiblings later. I think this should be possible.

The current debate on whether this should be a hard redirect to rapid transit seems to boil down to:

Yes:

  • It's the most common use of the word and should therefore be the primary meaning, with the secondary meanings (eg pedestrian tunnel) on a subway (disambiguation) page.
  • Most links to subway refer its rapid transit incarnation, and someone writing an article and linking the word subway is most likely to mean "rapid transit".

No:

  • Other meanings of subway are in sufficiently widespread use that it would be confusing to have subway link directly to rapid transit

Judging from the discussion (and having lived myself in a number of English-speaking countries), it appears that "subway" is not universally and overwhelmingly taken to mean "urban rapid transit". I would interpret "primary meaning" as being applicable not only overwhelmingly but also as widely as possible — most people in most places should associate "subway" with "rapid transit" if it is to be the primary meaning — which does not appear to be the case here. A speaker of British English will likely not expect an article on rapid transit if he/she types "subway" into the seach box.

While it is true that most links to subway mean "rapid transit", this can be attributed to the fact that rapid transit is more, well, 'interesting' than pedestrian tunnels or restaurant chains (meaning you can write more about it). However, links can be easily changed (especially since we have "what links here"), and there is very little harm done by a reader clicking on subway, expecting to read about rapid transit, and finding a disambig page where the article on rapid transit is listed in the first two lines. Of course, this shouldn't happen — editors should click through all their links when editing to see if they end up at the right place and disambig if necessary — but if does it's not a huge loss. Not as confusing as a user clicking on subway expecting to read about a sandwich shop and finding an article on rapid transit, where s/he must spot the "for other uses of "subway", see subway (disambiguation)" line. To us regular contributors spotting this line is second nature, but a more casual user will probably miss it.

No matter what happens to subway (hard redirect or disambiguation page) a number of links in various articles have to be updated in order to point them at their intended destinations. It would have to be done anyway — and thanks to "what links here" shouldn't take too long, especially if several users are involved.

Therefore, my suggested course of action: Make subway a disambiguation page (such as the one at time of writing), and go through "what links here" to make sure as many pages as possible link to the correct incarnation of "subway".

Of course, I have no more authority than anyone else here, I'm just responding to a Request for Comment as an non-involved party. By the RfC process, the parties (that means you lot!) have to come to an agreement, I was merely trying to tie all the ends together.

So: do you agree with this proposal? Suggestions, comments, rotten vegetables? — QuantumEleven 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree -- I certainly agree with this proposal and for all the reasons stated. Atlant 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think this is an appropriate case for a straw poll, as voters may be affected by knowing only one variation of the term. By WP:DAB there must be a clear and unambiguous consensus for there to be a Primary topic page, otherwise the default is a disambiguation page. There's clearly no consensus going on here so we should resort to the neutral default option without debate. Incidentally all links to Subway which meant rapid transit were disambiguated in March, but new ones have been added since then. I'll try to fix all those soon. — SteveRwanda 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Note: I've gone through and disambiguated all links to Subway found in article space (I ignored Wikipedia and User spaces). For the record at least one in three of all the changes I made were to disambiguating Subway to Subway (restaurant) rather than to Rapid transit, so it should be even clearer now that there's no primary topic here! Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree Subway is a distinct term that deserves its own article. 'Rapid Transit' could include surface transit.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So can "subway". Many systems described as subways have above-ground sections. --SPUI (T - C) 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. When you have a word that means one thing in American English and another thing in UK English, it's best, in my view, not to favor one or the other. A disambiguation page is neutral. Anyway, I would guess that even when Americans talk about a "Subway," they are usually refering to the ubiquitous restaurant chain. Yes, that's capitalized, but a lot of people don't bother to use capitals when entering search terms. Finally, a "subway" and "rapid transit" are not the same thing. Cleveland has a rapid-transit system, but no one would call it a subway (only one station is underground). -- Mwalcoff 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure you're voting on the "polarity" that you think you're voting on. I've just highlighted the actual proposal. Atlant 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "Subway" should be changed back to redirecting to rapid transit because this is the meaning of "subway" that people are most likely to want to look up. 207.176.159.90 10:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted change to redirect

User:In Defense of the Artist changed this page to redirect to Rapid transit with no consensus for such a move. I regularly dab links to Subway, and there is something fairly close to a 50-50 split in those links, about half needing to go to Rapid transit and about half needing to go to Subway (restaurant). Because of these factors, I have reverted the change. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)