Talk:Transportation in Beijing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Use the talk page, will you? 2 Edits by user:Alanmak 3 Why is there no mention of walking or cycling in this article? 4 Edits by user:SchmuckyTheCat

[edit] Use the talk page, will you?

There's an edit war here and the talk page link has remained red. I'm the first to comment. Post something here, will both of you? Edit summaries are supposed to be used to describe your edits, not communicate with each other. --Jiang 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do either of these idiots even live in Beijing? Or even China for that matter? —This unsigned comment was added by Laomei (talk • contribs) 20:14, March 30, 2006 (UTC).

Depends on your definition of China. SchmuckyTheCat 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say Mainland+Hong Kong+Macau+Taiwan for the fun of it. That seems to be the accepted stance where I live. Laomei 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by user:Alanmak

User:Alanmak has been edited this article for many times to assert his personal view that Hong Kong lies within the railway network of the People's Republic of China. The real side of the fact is that the KCR East Rail is connected to the railway network of mainland China at Shenzhen, but it's not actually part of the network. — Instantnood 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a part of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the railways in Hong Kong are, naturally, part of the railway network of the People's Republic of China. There is the fact, rather than a personal view asserted by myself. What you are talking about was the situation during the British colonial era, which is already out-dated. Although the Railway Department of the People's Republic of China is not responsible for the internal railway - such as the MTR, the KCR West Rail and the KCR Light Rail - in Hong Kong, the intercity trains going to and from Hong Kong are managed by the national authority, and uses the trains provided by the mainland. Therefore, for the Beijing-Kowloon Railway, it is true to say that it is one railway, but the railway uses the rail of the the KCR East Rail as the train enters the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The phenomenon that two or more railway routes share a common portion is not uncommon. What makes the intercity trains to the Hong Kong SPECIAL Administrative Region SPECIAL is that passengers have their personal identification documents inspected before entering the special administrative region. But this does not affect the fact that Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China. - Alan 23:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's never ever anybody disputing the fact that Hong Kong is presently, according to the Basic Law, an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China as a special administrative region. Yet it doesn't mean it's the railways are one network and one administration. The intercity train services are jointly operated by the KCRC and several companies or authorities from the mainland, and the KCRC does provide some of the train cars.

The Ministry of Railway in Beijing unilaterally named the railway line between Beijing and Shenzhen as Jingjiu, and that doesn't make the section between Lo Wu and Hung Hom stations part of the Jingjiu Line. The Railway Ministry in Beijing has no authority to direct the KCRC or the Transport Department of the Hong Kong Government.

Further, the Beijing-Kowloon Through Train service has never been using the Jingjiu Line since it was commenced. — Instantnood 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no mention of walking or cycling in this article?

It seems a very, very, curious omission for an article on Beijing. No? --Sf 13:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree. Further more i was looking for some information on the new bikesharing scheme from Beijing Bicycle Rental Services, but could not find anything.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/50000-rental-bikes-for-2008-beijing-olympics-12164

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-08/21/content_6034494.htm --Stefanbcn 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by user:SchmuckyTheCat

[1] [2] - Why are useful edits kept being reverted by user:SchmuckyTheCat? Does he have the obligation to revert only what he disagrees? (Apparently he was even given an option to do so [3].) — Instantnood 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to make the edits you want without making the edits that you know will be reverted. When you purposefully include edits that started revert wars earlier, then put other edits afterwards you should expect the entire thing to get reverted. You should be used to that by now. SchmuckyTheCat 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Useful edits should always be preserved. One should revert only what she/he disagrees. — Instantnood 18:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with you, nobody has time. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When in doubt, it would be advisable to defer to the edit that includes more information, as long as it isn't extremely poorly written. Schmucky's has a little more information and doesn't screw up the article. Easytoremember 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the two versions provide " more information " than the other. — Instantnood 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)