Talk:Premetro

underreferenced...

In my opinion this article is under-referenced. I don't think any systems should be listed on this article which don't have a reliable authoritative reference that calls them a premetro system.

The article on the Eglinton–Scarborough Crosstown line is listed in this article, and is described in its own article as a premetro line -- without any references.

At this moment the single reference to this article is just a passing mention to the term. That mention is not in a book or journal or newspaper. Some sites like trainweb, run by fans, are just about as reliable as books and newspapers. It's a reference I suspect is insufficient to survive being challenged at {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep

This article Premetro contains a tidy list of many of the premetro tram/train systems around the world. Tabletop (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The exact same claim was made in the {{afd}}, to which I replied:

The article contains a list that may look tidy, but is entirely unreferenced and consists entirely of original research. With the exception of the three Belgian systems none of those rapid transit systems belong on this list, because there isn't a single WP:RS that identifies those systems as "premetro" systems. You may find lots of hits when you do a web search, which is irrelevant if those none of those web search hits are to reliable sources.

I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, and if the "tidy list" remains unreferenced I am going to remove it.

I think I will also remove the highly questionable characterization of Boston's Blue Line as a "premetro" line, if it remains unreferenced. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Boston Blue Line a premetro line...

I am concerned that almost all of this article consists of original research. In particular I think it is highly questionable to characterize Boston's Blue Line as a premetro line. First, I question calling any light rail system a premetro system if it wasn't designed with upgrading to heavy rail in mind. Second, I question calling any light rail system a premetro system if no reliable sources describe it as a premetro system. Third, Boston's Blue Line was upgraded from streetcars to heavy rail almost 100 years ago -- long before the term premetro was coined.

That Boston's Blue Line was not designed for upgrading to heavy rail is obvious from the harbor tunnel being built to the dimensions of streetcars. When the line was upgraded to heavy rail Boston had to use special extra small extra short rolling stock because there was no way to upgrade the harbor tunnel so it could accommodate normal heavy rail rolling stock. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No real objection to deleting Boston's Blue Line from this list, for the reasons you cite. Honestly, the better Boston example of a "Premetro" would probably be the Green Line anyway, as its "tramway/streetcars in a downtown tunnel" is a lot closer to the definition of a "Premetro" anyway.

However, the challenge to Buenos Aires' Line E2 is not correct, as Metrovías themselves have basically renamed that line "Line P", for "Premetro" (I tried to get that page moved to "Line P" a few months back but there wasn't concensus to do that). For an example that it's considered "Premetro", see the following Metrovías webpage: History of the Premetro Line (note their own use of the word). --IJBall (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

They speak Spanish in Buenos Aires. That Hispanophones call their light rail system Pre-Metro does not mean they are saying it is a "premetro system". It could just be the system's name. That the system was designed with station platforms that could only accommodate a single vehicle is all the disproof I need that the system does not qualify for inclusions here. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily - again, the intent is less important I think that the future capability of the lines. The fact that the platforms are single-vehicle now doesn't necessarily preclude their later "upgrading" to longer (i.e. multi-car) platforms. To me, the most important criteria for its inclusion is whether Line E2/Line P fully is "grade-separated" or not. If it isn't fully grade-separated, then it's not "Premetro" but regular "Light rail". But if it is fully grade-separated, then it likely qualifies as "Premetro", even with its current platform configuration. At least, IMHO... --IJBall (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The PreMetro E2 article says...

The PreMetro E2 article says "The low-platform stops along the line are long enough to accommodate only one car at at time, and multiple-unit operation is not planned, so the tramcars are not equipped with couplers."

If the line had been designed for upgrade to heavy rail the platforms would have been designed to accommodate more than one vehicle at a time.

Apologies to IJBall above, I thought I added this section before I went to sleep last night. I went to the premetro history page you offered above. I don't see a single sentence, or even phrase, that says or implies the line was designed with a conversion to heavy rail in mind. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure where the idea that a "Premetro" has to be a line or system in which the ultimate intent was to convert to "full metro" came from, but I'm not sure I like it on my end.
2. If we go with that definition, then you have to worry about the intent of the line-building, and I don't think "intent" should necessarily be a primary part of the definition here. (A secondary part, perhaps - but not a primary one).
3. On my end, my interpretation of what a "Premetro" is is any Light rail system that has a substantive portion underground in "subway" tunnels or a Light rail line that is mostly or entirely grade-separated (and thus could be relatively easily "upgraded" to full metro standards). A really good example of what I'm thinking of in regards to the former is Muni Metro: I don't think anybody seriously conceived that Muni Metro would be entirely converted to "full metro" standards ever. However, a substantial portion of Muni Metro is below ground, and that part does operate like a quasi-Metro, even though most of the rest of the system is a straight-up "streetcar" system.
4. So I think it's better if the definition of "Premetro" stays away from this "intent to convert to a full metro", or at least doesn't necessitate that being part of the definition. Anyway, that's my $0.02...
5. In any case, back to the topic at hand, Metrovías themselves characterize this line as "Premetro", which is good enough for me. --IJBall (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of numbering IJBall's points to make them easier to respond to. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1. If a line is not designed so conversion to heavy rail is easier then this term is truly meaningless.
2. With regard to "intent"" -- if the term "premetro" were meaningful I suggest it would not imply a guarantee that the line would be upgraded to heavy rail. If the term were meaningful I suggest it would imply the line's designers made a significant effort to make upgrading easier.
3. Conversion to heavy rail requires more than underground tunnels or completely separate right-of-way.
   • See my description of Toronto's SRT, which had a completely separate right-of-way, yet conversion to heavy rail was going to be hugely expensive. Why? There could be reasons over and above those I already named.
   • The right of way on Toronto's SRT curved too tightly for heavy rail
   • Toronto's SRT's light rail stations were too short for full length trainsets.
   • Heavy rail trains were wider, so even shorter trainsets couldn't be run on the line, without totally rebuilding the station platforms.
   • Toronto's SRT uses a non-standard power collection method. Don't discount the cost of replacing one power collection system with another. Similarly the signalling and monitoring systems will almost certainly be incompatible.
   • Have you ever been to London England? Did you ride the DLR (Docklands Light Rail)? I did, I rode it from one of the main Underground lines near the Parliament buildings to Island Garden station at the tip of Canary Wharf. This was in 1996, and it was a beautiful, shiny new system. It had everything you stated you would require for a system to be considered a premetro system. But it could not be converted to heavy rail. The stations were small -- designed for the DLR's shorter trainsets. I think the line's tunnels would be too narrow, and its curves would be too tight. I am sure it would be cheaper to build a brand new heavy rail line than to try to convert that line to heave rail.
   • Even if the length of the stations on an original so-called "premetro" light rail line was sufficient for heavy-rail trainsets there would be no point upgrading the line to heavy rail without upgrading its station so its escalators, stairways, hallways, are sufficient to accommodate a larger number of passengers heavy rail can carry. Same with the exit and entrance turn-stiles. All these things cost money
4. see point # 1 above.
5. No, Metrovias named the line "PreMetro", which could just be its name. Since the Pre-Metro E2 article explicitly says the line was not intended to be upgraded this system doesn't qualify. Geo Swan (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to requote the first sentence of the article here:

A premetro is a tramway or light railway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards, usually [emphasis mine] as part of a process of conversion to a metro railway, mainly by the construction of tunnels in the central city area.

It is clear from the definition used in the article itself that there is no necessity that the system be designed with a future "up-conversion" to heavy rail in mind or planned. The only requirement is that it be a light rail (or streetcar) system that includes portions build to "metro (or rapid transit) standards" - e.g. in subway tunnels, or full grade-separation, etc. I don't think that makes it "meaningless" - its meaning seems quite clear to me.

Otherwise, systems such as San Francisco's Muni Metro, which I think is pretty universally regarded as a "Premetro" system, wouldn't qualify either, and I don't think anybody thinks that. (It looks like or Philadelphia's SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines system might also qualify here, for the same reason Muni does.)

So far, I think I haven't seen anybody else claim that an intent to convert to "heavy rail" is a precondition to be considered a "Premetro". I do realize and understand that was the original French meaning for the term back in the 1970s. But the term has evolved from that...

Oh, and on Docklands Light Railway - it is considered to be a "full Metro" system over on the List of metro systems, so it's actually graduated past "Premetro". --IJBall (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives to converting a light rail line to heavy rail

There are practical reasons why what respondents in the {{afd}} called the "concept" of building "premetro" light rail lines, with a plan to convert them to heavy rail if ridership justified that change, is not an attractive idea.

1. With modern light rail technology the maximum capacity of a fully deployed light rail line, one with trainsets of multiple vehicles, running with a short headway, is 30,000 passengers per peak hour direction. Well, the maximum capacity of heavy rail is usually said to be 40,000 ppphd -- a modest increase.
2. Converting a line from one technology to another means taking the line out of service for an extended period -- vastly inconvenient to riders.
3. Converting a line from one technology to another isn't cheap. There are more costs than just exchanging the old rolling stock with new rolling stock.
   • Will the new rolling stock be able to use the power collection method of the old vehicles? Unlikely.
   • Will the platforms be at the right height, or will they have to be replaced or retrofitted? Do the stations' escalators, hallways, platforms have the capacity to handle the greater ridership of heavy rail?
   • Will the new system require new signalling and control technology?
   • Are the old systems rails, sleepers, etc, robust enough for the newer technology?
   • What do you do with the old rolling stock, if it hasn't been fully amortized?

I think the reason real transit experts are not enthusiastic about this premetro concept is that, if a light rail line is near capacity, or at capacity, and the line is using trainsets of the maximum length, and headway has been reduced to the minimum, they are going to suggest using whatever capital funds were available to build a brand new line nearby -- near enough that some of the riders of the over-capacity line will find it just as convenient, or more convenient to use the new line.

Converting an existing light rail line to a heavy metro line leaves a city with just a single line -- one that has a 30 to 50 percent higher capacity than the earlier line. The hidden cost that this line, with high ridership, will be unavailable during the years of reconstruction. Building a new light rail line, the same length of the existing line might cost two or three or four times the cost of upgrading the old line. But at the end of the process the city will have two lines -- a 100 percent higher capacity than the earlier line. If the city doesn't have the capital funds to build a brand new line the same length as the earlier line, start by building only the first half, the half closest to downtown, the half that will make a bigger difference in off-loading some of the ridership of the overcapacity line. In a couple of years, when more funds become available, the new line can be extended. Or maybe, with some of the ridership on the original line offloaded, the city might extend both lines, extending the old line to an exurb, or to a new airport, new sports venue, new college, new big mall. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why Toronto's SRT should not be characterized as a premetro line...

First, it should not be characterized as a premetro line because no reliable source ever asserted it was a premetro line.

Second, it was clearly never designed with the idea of replacement by heavy rail. The SRT connects with the eastern terminus of the Bloor-Danforth Line, Kennedy Station. The SRT platform is co-linear with the heavy rail platforms two floors below, and immediately enters a 90 degree turn north -- a turn that while not a problem for light rail vehicles is very tight for a longer heavy rail vehicle. There is a second 90 degree turn around the halfway point in the route. If the line had been designed with eventual replacement by heavy rail the right of way chosen would have been chosen to be compatible with heavy rail.

Why Toronto's 3 SRT replacement options don't make the SRT a premetro line

In 2013 three different alternatives were under consideration.

1. Planners had recommended extending the Eglinton Crosstown LRT along the SRT's existing right of way, and a couple of further kilometers northwest, under the huge highway 401 to a college on Sheppard Avenue.
2. An eleventh hour plan to extend the Bloor-Danforth Line along a brand new (shorter) right-of-way under the 401 to Sheppard was heavily pushed by backwards local politicians, with support from the Federal government. This route would add only 3 stops, not the 9 stops on the expert-preferred route.
3. An eleventh and a half hour plan was floated by the Provincial Minister of Transport, suggesting using heavy rail on the existing SRT right of way, but retaining only two of the original stations. If this alternative had been chosen it might have seemed like an instance where a premetro light rail line was actually upgraded to heavy rail. But I would argue the inadequacy of the original right of way proved it was not designed as a premetro line.

One of the main arguments eleventh hour and eleventh and a half heavy rail alternatives is that Scarboro deserved a subway line of its own, since North York was served by three subway lines.

Toronto's SRT is a special case. It is almost 40 years old. Over 40 years ago, when it was being planned, planners wanted to use CLRV rolling stock, the light rail vehicles that most closely resembled the very successful PCC streetcars. If the line had used a convential technology the line would not have to be retired after 40 years.

For complicated political reasons the Province of Ontario, which was picking up a big part of the cost of the new line, wanted it to be the showcase of a new and untested technology. The cars aren't powered by conventional electric motors. Rather between the rails there is a long metal slab, and the cars use linear induction. As a showcase for the new technology the SRT was a success. Vancouver's Skytrain uses the technology, as do several other cities. But, the SRT uses the original rolling stock. When new, long (and more attractive) rolling stock was introduced, it was too long for the curves on the SRT. Toronto considered purchasing older rolling stock from other cities, but it wouldn't be much newer than Toronto's original rolling stock.

So, most lines can remain in service for far longer than 40 years, provided there is a responsible maintenance effort, and equipment can be replaced when it is worn out.

So, the SRT is an exceptional case. This article currently claims five systems are instances of premetro light rail lines that were upgraded to heavy rail. One of those 5 systems is Boston's Blue Line -- a claim I have argued is questionable. I suspect that, looked at in detail, the other four systems will prove to be exceptional, and that like the SRT, they had to be replaced for some technical reason. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the costs of upgrading a light rail line to heavy rail to the cost of a new light rail line

I think the projected costs of the alternate options, particularly 1 and 3 above, helps illustrate the hidden costs of upgrading an existing light rail line. Alternative 3 would have upgraded an existing right of way about 5 km long and would have cost more than upgrading the line from the SRT to a more conventional LRT technology and adding several kilometers of new LRT. In this particular instance the projected costs suggest a new light rail line can be constructed for about the cost of upgrading an LRT to heavy rail. If this is generally true, then instances where upgrading a line was better than building a parallel line would be very rare. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is about the Eglinton Crosstown line, I agree that it should have been deleted from the list as I can find no mention of it being a "premetro" (just "light rail").

If this is about Scarborough RT, FWIW, APTA categorizes it as "Intermediate rail" (i.e. "Medium-capacity rail transport system", aka. "Light metro"). So, again, I'd agree that it probably doesn't qualify as "Premetro", as it seems to be the step beyond "Premetro" to "Light metro". --IJBall (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning! This article is almost entirely unreferenced and relies very heavily on original research

I made the point above, and during the recent {{afd}}, that this article is almost entirely unreferenced, and consists almost entirely of WP:Original research.

In particular the list of premetro systems is unreferenced. I checked some of those systems, to see if there were any WP:reliable sources that substantiated that an expert had referred to the system as a "premetro" system. As I suspected, I could not find any substantiation.

It is not my job to find those sources. It was the job of whoever placed the systems in the list in the first place.

I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, and if no one adds any references to this list, I am going to remove the whole section.

If some of the systems are references provided I believe the remainder should be removed.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Any chance you can hold off until the end of the year? I'd like to see if I can dig up a (general) reference on Premetros (e.g. a book) to see what I can find (if anything), but I likely won't have any time to do that until December... Thanks - Cheers! --IJBall (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Two months? Really? That seems like an awfully long time.

The problem I have is that this original research may be influencing the authors of sources we consider WP:RS, may be covertly quoted or paraphrased. I support the WP:No original research policy and it disturbs me that original thought left in this article by no doubt well-meaning contributors, who didn't understand our prohibition against original research is covertly turning an amateur fan concept into a real concept.

A dirty secret is that many journalists and students start their research at the wikipedia, and that the lazier fraction of journalists and students don't bother going on and doing any other research. If the wikipedia didn't exist, or didn't have an article on the topic they were writing about, they would have to do their own search. Good students and good journalists would be supplementing looking at the wikipedia with their own research anyhow.

I have been one of the wikipedia's more prolific contributors, and my google searches have taken me to newspaper articles that contain passages that looked extremely familiar. There have been times when mainstream journalists cut and pasted verbatim copies of paragraph length passages I contributed to the wikipedia directly into their own articles, without any attribution.

Would you consider instead agreeing that all the unreferenced passages be deleted, and that you would then restore those passages you can substantiate, when you can substantiate them? Geo Swan (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's preferable to you, then yes. I teach university, so I am swamped right now. But, come December, I'm going to see if I can dig up some references in the library about "Premetro" and "Light Metro" systems, to try and nail down better definitions (i.e. the specific differences), and to see if there are specific examples provided within. I may find nothing, but I'm going to try to give it a shot next month... --IJBall (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Still haven't had a chance to track down a reference yet. If I find one, I can always add info to the article later. (Will try to search for references in the next couple of weeks, hopefully...) --IJBall (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find verifiable authoritative references that substantiate any line in Oslo was ever called a premetro line...

Here is a google news search for Oslo metro premetro. No hits. So I suggest it should be removed from Premetro#Built as premetro, later converted to full metro. Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find verifiable authoritative references that substantiate any line in Stockholm was ever called a premetro line...

Here is a google news search for Stockholm metro premetro. No hits. So I suggest it should be removed from Premetro#Built as premetro, later converted to full metro. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find verifiable authoritative references that substantiate any line in Frankfurt was ever called a premetro line...

Here is a google news search for Frankfurt metro premetro. No hits. So I suggest it should be removed from Premetro#Built as premetro, later converted to full metro. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead an delete this one. Frankfurt U-Bahn is an odd duck - it's less than a full metro in parts (running more like Light rail in the suburbs), but it doesn't meet the definition of "premetro"... --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find verifiable authoritative references that substantiate any line in Vienna was ever called a premetro line...

Here is a google news search for Vienna metro premetro. No hits. So I suggest it should be removed from Premetro#Built as premetro, later converted to full metro. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues

No edit warring! That is unacceptable. Anyone who has have an issue the POST it here. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Posts already are here - Geo Swan and I have been discussing this issue for months.

I will also remind you that no reference on this page (yet) shows that a Premetro must be designed with a conversion to "heavy rail" planned (just that it "usually" is). If you can produce such a reference, I know it would be appreciated. --IJBall (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? What does the provided reference then talk about then ("THE IDEA spread to Belgium where it became known as premetro"). Everything is exactly as provided. It seems to me like the problem is not so much lack of evidence but lack of good faith. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be very careful in going down the road of not WP:assume good faith. In any case, you have stumbled in to a long-running discussion here. And, again, no reference that I have yet seen (I don't have access to Reference #2, and so cannot tell you exactly what it says...) states that a "Premetro must be designed with a conversion to "heavy rail" planned" - even this article's lead states that this is just "usually" the case. --IJBall (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I just updated (provided link to the source) —Loginnigol (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, cool - thanks for access to Ref. #2! That is an interesting time-capsule. That article actually refers to San Francisco's Muni Metro as a "semi-metro" which is a term that I've never even heard before. (So that may mean that Muni Metro should be added back in as an example; the article also explicitly mentions Ghent, but I don't know enough about that one...)

One thing I will note about it though: Ref. #2 seems to make it pretty clear that "Pre-metro" is a term that was used (at the time) only in Belgium - the Germans did not call it that.

Still looks like we need a more modern reference on this topic. I'm still hoping to dedicate some time to that, but finding the time has been tough. --IJBall (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree Muni qualifies as premetro. Heck, in principle I don't object to any system being called premetro if the term has EVOLVED into something else besides its original meaning — but in that case we must provide the full context (meaning, we must mention the full historical development and how the term subsequently evolved/expanded its meaning to include not only X but also Y —Loginnigol (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. That's why we need to find a more up-to-date reference. Or, if we can't find one, the article needs to acknowledge that "premetro" was a term that was mostly used in the 1970s, and hasn't been used as much since... --IJBall (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That "acknowledgement" is completely unnecessary. First of all the sources provided were used in order to support the definition of the term (definitions don't magically become outdated just cuz they are from 1970s — assuming that is WP:RECENTISM or whatever it is called), not the usage of it in everyday language. A simple google or google news search would give you better clues to the usage of the term "premetro" itself, which is actually very much used every day by thousands/millions of people in dozens of languages. It just so happens that most of these people are not located in a faraway English-speaking country where 99% of Wikipedia english editors are located and therefore are completely and totally unfamiliar with the term in real life since the term is seldom used domestically in Anglo Saxon countries. —Loginnigol (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

explanation

I removed Tyne and Wear Metro from this list. See my explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyne_and_Wear_Metro&diff=700011002&oldid=690931111 Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Mislinking

This article is mislinked to the Buenos Aires Premetro Article. Since my IP address is blocked, I can't do anything else but to report it here. JSSM-VCJR, under IP 2800:484:347E:E00:95DA:3DF0:7CC8:AF7A (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

My IP address isn't blocked, actually. Sorry. JSSM-VCJR, under IP 2800:484:347E:E00:95DA:3DF0:7CC8:AF7A (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes so parts of the original article should show again. KatVanHuis (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal was made to merge the Semi-metro article into the Light rail article. An alternative suggestion emerged to merge "Semi-metro" with Premetro instead, as some participants believe this might be a better fit given their specific similarities. This proposal has received some support as a compromise to address the concerns raised.Lea 4545 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be difficult to grasp a term within an abundance of related terms. I created a family tree for a better overview. "Semi-metro" and "Premetro" are in different tiers in the category tree and therefor deserve their own article. This despite their similarities, which may not be surprising as one is the parent of the other.

Guided tranist Light rail Tram City tram _ Interurban _ Rubber-tyred tram _ Tram-train Mixed with railways _ On former railways _ Semi-metro Premetro _ U-Stadtbahn _ Conflict free transit Light metro VAL-systems _ Systems with LRVs _ Light Monorail _ Full metro Rubber-tyred metro _ Steel wheeled metro _ Monorail _

Family of guided urban transport

KatVanHuis (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent reverts

First of all, I would like to point out that users should explain their reverts, unlike this one bij Lea 4545.

Secondly, the hinting of vandalism in the second revert is harmful, because vandalism on Wikipedia is defined by actions "such as page blanking and adding offensive language" and I clearly did not do that.

Laslty, about the contents: the claim by Lea 4545 that "Broad consensus on this has was reached and has been maintained since 2006" is false. In 2013 the article was nominated for deletion an a clear statement was made "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached." After that and until early 2014 the discussion was continued on this very page. Consensus was that more sources had to be found. Sadly, user IJBall hasn't done that as of yet, but I'm currently working on it. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to start a discussion.

I have written this new lead to avoid the term light railway as the Light Railways Act 1896 is a British legal term and premetro is a type of light rail. Light rail however, is a term coined in the U.S. and is a generic definition.

Since you @Lea 4545 have started reverting, it is your duty to explain which fundamental alterations exactly have been made, so we can achieve consensus from there. KatVanHuis (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the reverts were made by Lea 4545 when KatVanHuis redefined premetro as a "concept".

Premetro is not a theoretical "concept" but an established type of transit that exists in various cities. Referring to it as a "concept" undermines its established implementation and significance. It is important that the article reflects this. Yes, the term "light railway" can indeed cause confusion, so we can avoid using it here, however I do not see it as a justification to wholly rewrite the introduction and relegate the topic of premetro to a "concept".

The insistence shown by KatVanHuis does raise questions to me about whether there’s an intention by them to promote the "semi-metro" page at premetro's expense instead. Semi-metro which they have almost singlehandedly written, and which they stand alone in defending when its necessity is called into question, or when merge proposals are made.

Lea 4545 should know that providing explanations for reverts is considered good practice. However KatVanHuis there is no duty to do so in Wikipedia guidelines. Reverts can be made to maintain the quality of articles, especially if an edit is perceived to lower the article's quality or disrupt consensus. Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Qpwoeizmxnr for taking the time to write an extensive reply, in detail and concerning different aspects, I appreciate that.

Concepts are not necessarily only theoretical and can describe practical phenomena, like the 'concept of a tree'. But to avoid confusion, what do you think about changing the word 'concept' into 'type of transport'? I've also rewritten the lead to get rid of the tern 'generally', as according to sources, the key principle of premetro is always planned later conversion to rapid transit.

Assume good faith is one of the concepts that is used on Wikipedia. My interest got sparked when user Geo Swan contested the premetro term in 2013 (see above) and coined the term semi-metro casually, albeit on a different talk page. Only in 2022 I started to look for sources on semi-metro, initially not expecting to find much, but to my surprise I've found many! Yet still, could you explain to me how writing an article about "semi-metro" hurts the article about "premetro"?

Edit Warring is not allowed. An explanation when reverting is indeed not a duty when it is about vandalism or spam, otherwise the policy mentions: If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. And moreover: When in doubt, do not revert. How can I improve the lead if Lea 4545 doesn't explain exactly what is wrong with it in the first place? KatVanHuis (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)