Jump to content

Talk:Rapid transit/Article name discussions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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)


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. 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: [1][2][3] If anyone has access to the Oxford English Dictionary, please report on what they have. --NE2 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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:

  • Garbutt, Paul. World Metro Systems. Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-191-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • W Hinkel, K Treiber, G Valenta and H Liebsch. Underground Railways Yesterday - Today - Tomorrow. Schmid Verlag. ISBN 3-900607-44-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Ovenden, Mark. Metro Maps Of The World. Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-288-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Fischler, Stan. Subways Of The World. MBI. ISBN 0-7603-0752-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

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 [4]). 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 [5], 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. [6]), 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 ([7]). 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.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page not moved. But please, keep discussing it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Rapid transit → Rapid transit (subway) — As noted above aswell, the name is badly chosen. Rapid transit should inmediatelly refer to the disambugation page; with this info being placed at Rapid transit (subway). Personally I would chose a more accurate name like Underground rail system or Underground electric train (subway basically being a train; note in Afrikaans its even called the mole train -moltrein). "Subway" and "underground" are not very good names neither as they do not state the nature of the transport.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.64.190 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Running underground is a common element, but not an essential one, and 'subway' is a very American term for it. My preference would be a return to Metro, following the recent restoration of List of metro systems. Something like Metro system or Metro (public transport) would do if disambiguation is needed. (Or, if the Americans need to be appeased, Metro/subway.) David Arthur (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly agree on a move to Metro. Any construction like Rapid transit (subway) or Metro/subway is however discouraged by naming guidelines. The disambiguation part should be a generic class that includes the topic, or context to which the topic applies. --Kildor (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur that compound titles like "Metro/subway" should be avoided. Beyond that, I'll only say that I think "Rapid transit" is best because it makes everybody equally unhappy (the sign of a good compromise). Americans are annoyed that it isn't "subway" and Brits are annoyed that it isn't "metro". Edit waring over article titles is WP:LAME. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say Brits prefer Underground! And "rapid transit" does not make everybody equally unhappy. Metro is the most common word used internationally. And I am going to repeat one of my arguments presented before:
Metro is the preferred term used by the International Association of Public Transport, major signalling and vehicle manufacturers, and reports. Examples:
And of course, Metro is the most common term/name of existing systems all over the world. --Kildor (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
And since this article does mention the El, present and past, subway is not the most helpful disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why we need to rename this page. --Kildor (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the article scope has significant problems. The lead says the article is about underground rapid transit systems, but the incoming redirects and the article content say otherwise. So I recommend a reorganization of this article, and possibly others related to it. Then revisit the page name of the article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the lead says: "Rapid transit systems are typically either in underground tunnels or elevated above street level. Outside urban centres rapid transit lines sometimes run grade separated at ground level.". So what is the problem with the scope?? --Kildor (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The lead begins

A rapid transit, metro(politan), subway, underground, or elevated railway system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency, and which is grade separated from other traffic.

...and the problem is the treatment of subway, underground, or elevated as synonyms (rather than subsets) of rapid transit. The first sentence of the lead defines rapid transit narrowly as grade separated, railway based rapid transit. What rapid transit is not grade separated? Recall streetcars in those cities such as Boston and New Orleans that still use them? And consider the history of rapid transit. What rapid transit is not railway based? Recall dedicated bus lanes. --Una Smith (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I get your point here. But yes, this article is about grade separated rail transport. A common and wider definition of rapid transit includes BRT:s, commuter rail and light rail systems, but these transit modes have their own articles. This is why this name need a another name, and I believe it should be metro. Do you think there is a need to rewrite the lead of this article, or to widen or narrow the scope of this article? Or is the scope unclear? --Kildor (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If the intended topic of the article is grade separated rail transport, then it seems the page name should be Grade separated rail transport. And the lead should begin something like this:

A grade separated rail transport system is a public railway which is grade separated from other traffic. Grade separation is used to achieve high capacity and frequency, and safety. Thus, it is used in urban areas and often consists of undergrounds (subways), elevated trains, and ...

Then the article needs sections on these different elements of grade separated rail transport systems, and the various redirects should go to those sections. --Una Smith (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to use a non-established term as name/title of this article. Instead we should use a more common term. Quoting a well-recognized report on mass transit I just read: "Metro is the most common international term for subway, heavy rail transit, though it is also commonly applied to elevated heavy rail systems. In this module we use "metro" to refer to urban grade-seperated heavy rail systems" (Mass Transit Options). --Kildor (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This proposal makes a bad name worse. The title is wrong, and the proposal makes it more wrong by introducing the second most common terminology to the totally wrong terminology. Everyone seems to agree that the current title is wrong, and the only argument is that people scream if you dare to call it "metro".

Let's use a little math terminology to see if we can clarify the problem. I'm going to use the term "subway" as a generic term for "the mostly electric trains that mostly run underground that we're trying to write an article about." I'll put it in quotes to ensure everyone understands I'm using it generically, and not as the suggested article title. So far so good?

Ok, read this list of statements and see which ones you agree with:

  • 1) rapid transit = "subway"
  • 2) rapid transit >= "subway"
  • 3) rapid transit <= "subway"

Reading over the many threads about the name, it appears that everyone involved agrees that (2) is the closest to the truth. Or put another way, "subways are one form of rapid transit". Right? Before continuing, does anyone disagree with that statement?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a fourth: Rapid transit <> subway. The first part of the Boston Subway was a streetcar tunnel, not rapid transit. --NE2 13:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your placement of "subway" in quotes. Do we have a definition of rapid transit? The sources in the article are a dictionary entry from 1873, which I would tend to ignore, as anything faster than horsecars was called rapid transit back then, and the APTA: "Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way." If we accept that definition, it would seem that rapid transit >= "subway" but just slightly, because certain high-standard bus rapid transit operations (but certainly not most - are there any that are completely on an exclusive right-of-way?) would also qualify. --NE2 14:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose rename. Agree with Markowitz. I agree with your Maury Markowitz' statement that subways are one form of rapid transit. Adding (subway) in parentheses to the title is of no help, and only serves to clutter the title, and make it less accurate. Just to provide an example, the Skytrain in Vancouver is a rapid transit system, fully grade separated, and mostly elevated above ground. But it also has ground-level sections, and underground sections. So is it a subway, a light rail, or a elevated rail system? Well, it is all of those things, thus, "rapid transit" seems the most logical term to encompass all of particular operating modes. —fudoreaper (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we might be forming some consensus here. Kildor? Una? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is pretty clear that there is a consensus on not moving this article to Rapid transit (subway). --Kildor (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so let's move on. As we all seem to agree that anything with "rapid transit" in the title is fundamentally wrong, we need to choose a new name.

I still stand by my numbers above: "metro" is used by well over half of all the systems in the world, with "subway" a distant second. The term "metro" is used on every continent that has a system, whereas "subway" is used primarily in the US and Japan, and "underground" is rare. Even in those places where "subway" or some other term is used, "metro" is also used. Metro appears to be universal.

As Kildor has noted, "metro" is also by far the most commonly used definition in reference works, notably major trade associations in the business. I think there is no more powerful argument for using this term. I would go so far as to suggest that any consensus we arrive at here is likely trumped by those definitions - after all, we likely wouldn't let spinsters agree on the title for an article on human procreation. (I put myself in the analogous group, my only intersection with "subway" is the one that I take to work :-)

Finally, we need to consider the issue of confusion caused by overlapping definitions. For instance, "subway" is a tunnel-like construction and "metro" is used by a bus-service in England. However, as I noted above, the examples of confusing terminology are greatest for "rapid transit" (where there are 6 subway-like systems called that, and hundreds of non-subway systems called that), medium for subway, and the least of all for metro.

So, let's tackle this one head-on: can anyone who does not like a title similar to "metro" please post their arguments again?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth: I don't agree that "rapid transit" is "fundamentally wrong". --NE2 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheerfully withdrawn! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the discussion that will follow, here are the numbers. Of the "subway like" systems listed here on the wiki, which appears to be accurate when cross-checked against online and dead-tree sources:

  1. 91 are called "metro"
  2. 21 are "subway"
  3. 6 are "underground" (or U-bahn)
  4. 6 are "rapid transit"
  5. 16 have no common naming

In every case of a country where the term "rapid transit" is used to describe a metro (Japan, USA, Singapore, Taiwan), there are examples of non-metro systems using the same name. In every case where a non-metro system uses the term "metro", there is a metro system also using the term.

So arguments about "is not common" or "is not common xxx" have to explain the notes above.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz: In my opinion, you're much better off finding and citing some reliable sources. Pointing to a list and saying "This shows that..." is original research, and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Don't make your own arguments. NE2 has the right idea below. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

I think what we need to do first is get definitions from groups like the American Public Transportation Association. Here's what they say:

  • Metropolitan Railway (Metro) See "Rail, Heavy."
  • Rail, Heavy An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling and high platform loading. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)" or "metropolitan railway (metro)."
  • Rapid Transit Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.

Now, these definitions are a little vague; for instance, can heavy rail have grade crossings? Looking at their list, it seems to match the concept that this article covers. So the APTA uses "heavy rail" with synonyms such as metro.

Please help find other such definitions from other groups, preferably ones that can be unambiguously applied to both current and former systems. --NE2 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one, from the Federal Transit Administration (yes, we need non-U.S. sources too): "Heavy Rail High-speed, passenger rail cars operating singly or in trains of two or more cars on fixed rails in separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded." --NE2 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
International Association of Public Transport: "What are metros? Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service." Would "metropolitan railway" be a better name? --NE2 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there is another article claiming that name, the original Metropolitan Railway. BTW, the metro defintion by UITP above continues with the following: "Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation.".
In a report quoted in the article, Mass Transit Options, we have the following definitions:
  • A heavy rail transit system is "a transit system using trains of high-performance, electrically powered rail cars operating in exclusive rights-of-way, usually without grade crossings, with high platform stations"
  • Metro is the most common international term for subway, heavy rail transit, though it is also commonly applied to elevated heavy rail systems. In this module we use "metro" to refer to urban grade-separated heavy rail systems.
I also like the metro definition by Urbanrail.net (although that is perhaps not considered a truly reliable source)
  • An urban electric mass rail transport system, i.e. it is primarily used to move within the city; Totally independent from other traffic, rail or street traffic; High frequency service (maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service)
I am trying to get a copy of the book Urban transit systems and technology, which seems to be a comprehensive book on the subject. Some chapters are available through google books, but I have been unable to see the definitions. From table of contents, (rail) rapid transit and metro appear to be used synonymously. --Kildor (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Metropolitan Railway is capitalized; we'd be using the lowercase metropolitan railway (which is, probably improperly, a disambiguation page for the former). As for the book, the author Vuchic seems to use "rapid transit" and "metro" interchangeably; from page 45: "The most common representatives are bus, light rail transit, and rapid transit or metro, but there are a number of other modes." It doesn't look like most of the book is even searchable. Interestingly, there's a 2003 book named "Metropolitan Railways: Rapid Transit in America"; in the preface the author says "It is no understatement to say that metropolitan railways—the all-embracing term I have chosen to represent the rapid transit subways, elevated railways, and light rail lines that now bind so many of our cities together—have shaped the urban centers they serve in profound ways." That seems a bit muddled, and other passages equally so: "Coincident with this new interest in the urban metro—as grade-separated rail rapid transit was coming to be known—was a proliferation of new technologies." not so much, but then "The light rail metro that opened at Buffalo in 1984..." --NE2 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am ok with naming the article Metropolitan railway, although I believe capitalization should not be the only measure for article disambiguation. --Kildor (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose using either "subway" or "metro". As for "metro", there's no indication that it's the primary topic for the title, so it would need a disambiguator anyway. Suggest retaining the current title. Dekimasuよ! 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the term rapid transit often includes bus systems (i.e. Bus rapid transit). At least, this article should be renamed Rail rapid transit, but better any name with metro since that is the most common term for these kind of transit systems. --Kildor (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Many, if not most, subways, metros, rapid transit systems, have both above ground and below ground sections. Boston and New York come to mind, and I believe that is also true of the London Underground, so it would be impossible to write an article that made a distinction between rapid transit systems that were underground vs. ones that are not. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And there are no such suggestions. This article is about metro systems, no matter if they are above or below ground. --Kildor (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Naming again

So where are we here? Is the current state of the discussion over "metro" vs. "metropolitan railway"? I'd be happy with either. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks like we have failed to build consensus other than "don't change the name". Personally, I feel this article should be about all forms of rapid transit, whether they are on rail, bus, maglev, trolley... whatever. The overarching design concept is fast public transit. The means to accomplish this is varied, but they are all made with the same purpose. I don't see any need to change the current title or topic, though what i just put forward may broaden the topic somewhat. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to define "fast public transit". When the term first came into use, it meant anything faster than a horse. What we're actually trying to figure out here, though, is what to call the article about the concept of grade-separated urban rail transport; I think most of us agree that that's a good scope for an article, whatever we call it. --NE2 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
'It seems I haven't clicked around very much. Rapid transit (disambiguation) and Bus rapid transit are two articles i failed to consider. Given the current state of things, it seems we have one article on rail rapid transit, and another on bus rapid transit. While the latter has a standard name, the former has many names, varying from region to region, upon which we can not agree.
I will point out that both metro and metropolitan railway both have existing articles, which we will have to consider if we choose a name like that. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus I can see is that the suggestions so far have failed to win any converts. That doesn't strike me as entirely surprising given that most of them aren't the ones actually being discussed in the discussions that follow. There does seem to be support for the concern that this title is a bad one, but the proposal we had to vote on was one that made it worse. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case. It seems like 'rapid transit' is the least-worst option, which is faint praise, but unless someone proposes a superior idea, it is what we will stick with. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The superior solution comes up in every one of these threads, is widely debated on, gets some traction, and then the process closes because the opening move was some bizarre name that no one even talks about. It's odd. So do we need a formal opening again to gather comments on something like metro? It seems most of them have been hashed out, repeatedly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Urgent change of the name of this article

I agree with several experts that also state that this article is about Rail Rapid Transit or metros. Urban transport has changed in the last 10 years. Mass tranportation is also possible in buses. It means that there are, so far, two types of Rapid Transit:

  • Rail Rapid Transit or metro or subway AND
  • Bus Rapid Transit

If the name of the article is based on references older than the existence of BRT systems of high capacity like TransMilenio (Bogota), then there might be serious omissions. Best, --TransportObserver (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Along with bus rapid transit this article should be updated to include aerial trams and mountain railways since several north American cities are using/purposing these as a high capacity alternatives to buses.
This is a definition that might better fit: Rapid transit is a form of transit with at least one of the following qualifications: significant grade separation and/or signaling priority over other traffic, higher than local average capacity, higher than local average frequency and designation by the transit authority as being a backbone route of the local transit system.
Unfortunately looking at the timestamps most of the discussion about this article seems dead or primarily focused on what to call and categorize as light rail, metro, subway, commuter rail, trams, streetcars, etc. Which I think is highly besides the point of the article.Argonius2 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments on article name

Some more comments on article name:

The American Public Tranportation Association (APTA), have a glossary of transit terminology. Their primary word for what is described in this article is heavy rail: ´

An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling and high platform loading. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)" or "metropolitan railway (metro)."

Their definition of rapid transit:

Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit use the word rapid transit in a quite a generic way:

This project is an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia related to: subways, light rail, trams and anything else that may fall under the category "rapid transit".
This project covers just about any type of rapid transit imaginable. It's a child project to WikiProject Trains.

The UK Transport Research Laboratory use the word rapid transit in several reports to describe "lighter" modes of public transport, as BRT, light rail and trams (example). In a recent report, The demand for public transport, a practical guide, the term heavy urban rail is used as a term that "comprises underground and metro systems designed for high capacity, and fully segregated from surface traffic". The term metro is used throughout the whole report to represent this mode of transport.

Another site [8] divide transit systems into tram, light rail, metro, tramtrain, commuter rail and rapid transit, where the metro definition is right on target, while rapid transit is used to describe high standard S-Bahn and similar commuter rail systems ("beefed up metro suited for longer distances"). The World Bank has a page about Public Transport Modes & Services. Their only useage of the term rapid transit is for bus rapid transit, or mass rapid transit that " is used to denote public transport modes operating on fully or partially exclusive tracks (rail or road)". In a report ([9] they define four generic forms of mass rapid transit:

  • Busways – these are generally segregated sections of roadway within major corridors, with horizontal protection from other traffic, and priority over other traffic at junctions, which are generally signalised
  • Light rail transit (LRT) – this is at-grade, with similar horizontal protection to busways
  • Metros – these are fully segregated, usually elevated or underground. It is the segregation that is critical to providing a rapid service, and the technology that allows a high mass ridership to be carried
  • Suburban rail – these services are usually physically part of a larger rail network, usually at-grade and fully-segregated incorporating road-rail segregation or controlled level-crossings -- Kildor (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"heavy urban rail"

I remember "heavy urban rail" or something like it suggested in the past (I think it was SPUI who first suggested this article name). Of all the suggested new names for this article, if we come to consensus on a move, this seems the least ambiguous to me. Slambo (Speak) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If this was used, I suspect urban heavy rail would make more sense; the "heavy rail" portion is already a reasonably widely used term. —Sladen (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
'Heavy Rail' for metro type systems is a north americanism. Plus common sense says heavy rail is the heaviest type of rail transport. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
‘Heavy rail’ in this context is a U.S. usage — in Britain it refers only to the real railway network — and is always jargon; how many people talk about taking the heavy rail to work? David Arthur (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the UK or America? Probably no-one in either case I would have thought. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, "rapid transit" as something other than grade-separated urban metro service is a marketing invention, and seems chiefly U.S.--in any case, U.S. planners have used "rapid rail transit" (or "RRT") to denote what people typically consider rapid transit, as opposed to allegedly-rapid light rail transit. I agree that "heavy rail" is jargony nonsense, misleading, and, if I might add, a term simply to distinguish older metro-style systems from the wave of marketed "light" rail systems planned in the 1980's. (Also, as an Americanism, it's utterly confused by the American public in debates and newspaper coverage about mass transit.)69.94.192.147 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bus Rapid Transit not "rapid transit"

How is Bus Rapid Transit (i.e. Bogota) not "rapid transit"? The Bogota system carries more people than a metro system does. The section on Bogota, in my opinion, should be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4wy1327 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the title of this article should be changed if it is only going to be about railway services. Rapid transit describes a service characteristic- grade separated, fast etc. Subway/underground/trains describe a mode of transit i.e.- the vehicle. It is possible to have a underground rail service that isn't rapid or grade separated and thus could not be called "rapid transit".

4wy1327 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not "rapid transit"

This article states that the definition of "a rapid transit ... is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency, and which is grade separated from other traffic". This is the very first time I have seen the term "rapid transit" used to be synonymous with "metro". In every single instance I have come across in my too-long years, the term "rapid transit" refers to a wide variety of systems, of which the metro is only one example.
I never take my own word for it, so I went out and looked at a number of different sources to find out if the odd definition was just my oddity. It wasn't. Even here on the wiki the article is list of metro systems, not "list of rapid transit systems" - that does exist, but is a superset of the different rapid transit systems. That list is useful, and after cross-checking it with several sources (including dead-tree), it shows that the vast majority of systems described in the definition are called "metro"s. Of the hundreds listed here, only six call themselves "rapid transit", and only two of those could be described as a metro.
On the other hand, I can think of dozens of examples of systems that actually do call themselves "rapid transit" that do not fit the definition in this article. For instance, Ottawa Rapid Transit and Sydney Metrobus systems use gas powered busses, yet refer to themselves as rapid transit. The Spadina Streetcar and Portsmouth - Fareham tram are both called rapid transit systems, as are similar systems from around the world. Arguably the most widely used example, BART, has metro-like portions, but also has considerable at-grade sections as well that most would consider to be more similar to conventional passenger rail than a metro.
So what we have is an article that's named after the least used and most confusing terminology, as opposed to the most common and least confusing, "metro". The discussion of "heavy rail" above appears to have led everyone off on a wild goose chase. The fact that this article is named inappropriately remains. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Numbers are always good when presenting an argument: of the 142 systems listed in the tight definition in list of metro systems here on the wiki, 91 are called "metro", 21 are "subway", 6 are "underground" (or U-bahn), 16 have no common naming, and 8 are "rapid transit" (actually only 6, 2 others refer to the organization as a whole, but I was being generous). That means there are many (many!) more non-metro systems that call themselves "rapid transit" than there are metros that call themselves "rapid transit" (see here and here. In every case of a country where the term "rapid transit" is used to describe a metro (Japan, USA, Singapore, Taiwan), there are examples of non-metro systems using the same name. In every case where a non-metro system uses the term "metro", there is a metro system also using the term. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the archives, you will see that there have been plenty of arguments on this issue. But I certainly agree with you that rapid transit is a confusing name of this article. This is clear by looking at the two references in this article having a definition of the term rapid transit:
  • Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way. (APTA)
  • fast passenger transportation (as by subway) in urban areas (Merriam-Webster).
Both use a definition which includes both bus and rail transit modes. The list of rapid transit systems was recently renamed to List of metro systems, and I think this article should be renamed as well. --Kildor (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I did look at the archives, and from my reading it seems the discussion was simple shouted down by one user and one counterexample. Do we need to go formal again? What's the process at this point or do I just do it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We will need to decide (reach a consensus) on what name this article should have. There is already a article with the name Metro. So we will either have to move that page to Metro (disambiguation) and move this page to Metro (which means that we will have to convince others on that this is the dominating meaning of the word metro), or move this page to another name:
I would say that Metro (public transport) is the best name for this article. --Kildor (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I would use "transit" instead of "transport", but otherwise I like it. I think we need to call others into the discussion though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not transit. First, note that rapid indicates fast. Nearly all the time, grades (interactions with crossing roads) are separated, by bridges or tunnels. Grade separation allows for fast speeds, interrupted only by stations, other trains or sharp curves in the track. Second, rapid transit is always understood to be powered by electricity.Dogru144 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 4

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 to Metro (rapid transit). Out of respect for Maury's wish to keep the discussion on the proposed title to avoid the tangents that "derailed" previous discussions, I've closed this discussion as it's clear there's no consensus to move to said title. Alternatives can be discussed separately. Cúchullain t/c 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rapid transit → Metro (rapid transit) – I propose this new name for discussion.Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposer's note:

The reason previous votes failed was because people kept proposing some new name, seemingly by combining random transit-related words. I see that it is happening again. I'll have to explore the why's of this a bit more at some point, but for now...

Please cast your vote on this proposal. Please say why you like or dislike this proposal, and offer your reasons.

If the vote fails we can look at alternates, but let's not confuse things more than they already are! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A requested move discussion, like any other consensus building process here on Wikipedia, is a discussion, not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy where decisions are based on strict votes or polls. Anyone who posts here is free to either support, oppose, or offer a new suggestion. Furthermore, you yourself have not yet explained here why you currently prefer Metro (rapid transit) instead of the status quo. Providing no persausive reason is not helpful, especially with all the previous move discussions. I, on the other hand, as stated above, would instead prefer a different title more in line with WP:COMMONALITY as a change of pace, rather than another title with a disambiguating word or phrase in parentheses. If the current page name of "rapid transit" is unsatisfactory, how will moving that exact phrase inside parentheses help with such a disputed page title, whose subject has multiple names throughout the world? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say we should't have a discussion, I said the previous discussions always failed because they kept getting led off topic into discussions of policy. Like this.
I will recap my argument, which can be found above:
"Metro" is, by far, the most widely used term for the topic of this article, "train-based group rapid transit systems that often operate underground". Of the many systems around the world, the vast majority of them have the word "metro" in the name. This is geographically spread, here in NA "subway" is more common, for instance. However, and this is critical, there is no location on Earth where at least one system exists and is not called "metro" - Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Africa all have a "train-based group rapid transit systems that often operate underground" with the name "metro" in the title. The exception is Antarctica, which doesn't have any (sadly, I'd ride it).
That is to say, even in those areas where the term is not common, like my own home, it is nevertheless understood and in use. I have to go no further than Montreal to find one. This statement cannot be made for any other term. We use "subway" here in Toronto, but that term is not understood or used in the majority of the planet. The same is true for "underground". Those terms, in particular, are confusingly overlapped, with opposite meanings in the places where they are used (contrast London and New York, for instance).
So, then, we have one term that is used everywhere, vs. a number of terms that aren't.
On top of this we must consider the "experts", specifically the CITEs that we do and would use in the article. As I noted above, the vast majority of these use the term "metro" as the base term, and explain any other term, like "subway", in effect, as a slang version of metro. No one has found a single modern source that proposes any other term as the "basic terminology", either explicitly or in common use.
So, that's what the people in the street call it, and the experts in the field too.
And then one must consider why make any change at all. That is also explained in depth above, but simply, the term "rapid transit" very simply is not a synonym for "train-based group rapid transit systems that often operate underground". Metros are a form of rapid transit, but a subset of that term. Other examples include bus rapid transit, some tram systems, light rail, and others. We don't ride "a rapid transit",
Finally, then, you raise the question of the parens. That's simple common formatting on the wiki. The page for "metro" is already in use and I would argue is in the correct form. In these cases, it is customary to use the term, and place an "explanation" in parens. Like Gee (navigation). Yet in this case, many pages already use and point to "Metro (rapid transit), so, you know, its already in use. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither "metro" nor "rapid transit" (or stringing those words together) actually implies being a railway. For example, there are numerous bus rapid transit systems – some of which are called "Metro" – e.g. as in Metro Rapid of Los Angeles County, Metrolinea in Colombia, Metro Transit RapidRide in Seattle (operated by King County Metro Transit), Metropolitano buses in Peru, MetroRapid buses in Austin, etc., etc. When I hear metro rapid transit, I just think of the public transportation system in a metropolitan area (which often have names that include "rapid" and "transit"), without regard to what type of vehicles it uses and whether it operates on rails or the roadway. I think the right solution should have "rail" or "railway" in it. –BarrelProof (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the world calls them "metros", as the many references above demonstrate. Solving confusion between article names and other common terms is the purpose of a redir. And we already have all the ones you could imagine, including many variations of your suggestion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
But how would Metro (rapid transit) be better than Metro (rail transit) or Metro (railway)? They're all "metros", and the latter two are both less ambiguous and more succinct. –BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. But perhaps Metro (rail transport) would be even better? The words transit and railway are subject to a British/American English conflict. Rail transport is a neutral term, and there is also a Wikipedia article with that name. --Kildor (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
That suggestion seems fine to me. –BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2012 (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.

Further discussion of requested move 4

I thought we were getting somewhere in that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 5

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 move. There was significant opposition to the suggested alternative article titles and no suggestion by those who propose the move that the current name breaches the guidance given in the WP:Article title policy. -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The last request was closed on 25 June 2012. As no substantive change in sources etc has been presented since the last request, this request was made before a reasonable time had elapsed since the previous request. I suggest that no further requests for a page move are made for at least 6 months and preferably not before new arguments (such as significant changes to the scope of the article, or evidence of common usage in reliable sources) is presented as a reason for a new requested move. Repeated requested moves can be seen as a form of forum shopping/disruptive, and are are a time sink for everyone involved -- time that would be better spent improving the content of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rapid transit → ? – As noted by BarrelProof the above below discussion wasn't carried out properly when someone proposed a move to Metro (rail transport). The purpose of this section is to help understand the consensus more clearly and make this a more formal move request. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this comment up the page and along with the template so that it is clear that this is a relisting of an ongoing discussion. Therefore the "BarrelProof the above discussion" should be read as "BarrelProof in the discussion below". The reason that the initial RM was not advertised on the RM notice board was because the template {{movenotice}} was placed on the article page rather than a {{requested move}} at the top of the move section on the talk page. I suggest that the new move request is left open for the usual duration of seven day at which point an administrator can asses what the consensus is using all the opinions expressed since the initial request on the 6 July. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Oh and thanks Dicklyon on the move. Not sure how I only reverted the talk page! Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 15:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 5 part a

Initial listing

Rapid transit → Metro (rail transport) – I propose this new name for discussion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Support – That was where we left off the discussion during the previous move consideration. I think it is a substantial improvement – both in terms of reflecting common usage and providing adequate disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Rail is not an essential property to be used for disambiguation; some metros do not use rail. −Woodstone (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand that comment. I believe this article is only about systems that use rail. Part of the purpose of the proposed renaming is to more accurately reflect that fact in the title. The systems that use buses have their own separate article (Bus rapid transit). Is that a suggestion to change the scope of the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The article includes already some metro systems, where at least some trains use rubber tyres (or magnetic levitation). The claim in the header about rail is false. Essential for "rapid transit" are the free tacks, not the type of wheels.−Woodstone (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The very first sentence of this article clearly states that this article is about rail transport. Even rubber-tyred systems have rail, and is generally considered rail transport. I see no problem using "rail transport" for disambiguation, and the proposed name is far better than the current name. --Kildor (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • To me it's not clear why it was concluded to reject the preceding move request to "Metro (rapid transit). That seems still the best one. Using "Metro (rail transit) is over-specific.−Woodstone (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Rapid transit is an ambiguous term, which is the reason for the move requests in the first place. Putting the ambiguous term in parenteses doesn't make the situation better. Rail transport is clearly defined, and has it own article here on Wikipedia. And it is not over-specific. Which is clear from the very first defining sentence of this article. Metro (rapid transit) was rejected in the previous move request, in favour of Metro (rail transport). As far as I can see, there is now consensus for a move. --Kildor (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Per the previous move discussion. --Kildor (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Red Slash 06:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The failure of (Attempt 3), archived above, appears due largely to the discussion started by BarrelProof, best contained in this statement, "Unfortunately, neither "metro" nor "rapid transit" (or stringing those words together) actually implies being a railway". In retrospect, after having read Woodstone's comment, I don't believe this statement is correct - at a minimum it appears to be a false dichotomy. There are a number of recognizable "train-based group rapid transit systems that often operate underground" that do not run on rails, but some other form of guideway. Yes, it is true that most of them do run on rails, and there are non-rail based systems we do not consider to be metros. But, critically, and contrary to the statement in (Attempt 3), stringing them together does fix that problem. Can anyone offer a counterexample? That is, a "train-based group rapid transit system that often operates underground" that does not run on rails and yet is called and recognized as "a metro" (as opposed to "metro-something" which refers to the city, not the system)? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose that was attempt 4, rather than attempt 3. To me the problem is not the alternative "train" systems, but the bus rapid transit systems and the various other meanings of "metro[politan]". To me some alternative clarifying name such as "Metro (train system)" would also be OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There are various examples listed above that use "Metro" and "rapid transit" for bus systems. I'm sure that with a little digging on the web, we could find more. Using "Metro (rail transport)" or "Metro (train)" or something of that sort should take care of that. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was this move request performed properly? I notice that this page does not appear in the list at Category:Requested moves or the list on the WP:RM page, and that this discussion has been open without new comments for a relatively long time. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it. Someone just moved it and so I just reverted it. I am going to add a fresh discussion below. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 5 part b

Relisted, See above (for move request)
There's an awful lot to take in here; can anyone summarize the arguments for and against the current title? Powers T 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't this discussion happened and been defeated many many times? The current name 'Rapid transit' is the least offensive, most neutral term that could be found for this type of transportation system. I don't understand what benefit the move has made (especially with the parentheses, that seems very strange). I don't believe this move was conducted properly, with the proper consensus built. —fudoreaper (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see anything else as good as "Rapid transit" in the proposals above, but would entertain new or re-proposals. Metro seems wrong, as it's just a part of a name, typically; and "Metropolitan transit" omits the rapid aspect; and rail may be too narrow. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has anything changed in the 2+ months since this was last rejected? No. Plus, there doesn't seem to be any evidence given to support either this or the previous request. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have no idea why this needs to be changed. Rapid transit is the common generic name for these systems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Response: In my view, the primary reason to change the title is to draw a distinction between the scope of this article and the bus rapid transit article. This article excludes consideration of bus-based public transportation systems, which should otherwise be included if the topic is "rapid transit" in general. (There have also been several prior move request discussions, which can be consulted above and in the archives.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: Surely the desire for that delineation would support the move? (Not deter it). —Sladen (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: It seems you've identified an issue that comes up often in Wikipedia as an article expands. Eventually, one sub-topic will grow large enough to have its own article—but what information should remain in the original article, and what should move to the new one? In this case, it looks like we are moving to having Rapid Transit as the main article, and then sections about types of rapid transit having a 'see main article' link to the full information. So there would be a section on Bus Rapid Transit with a few paragraphs, and a link to an article dedicated to Bus Rapid Transit. Same with underground rail, light rail, monorail, suburban rail—any other forms of rapid transit. Even potential technologies like maglev or car-trains, could have their own article linked from Rapid Transit. Therefore, keeping 'Rapid Transit' as the main article makes sense. We should mention ALL types of rapid transit on this article, and if we have enough info create an article just for one type, link to it from this page. Thus, I oppose renaming this article. —fudoreaper (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Response: Not exactly – I don't think the situation occurred as a result of an existing general article accompanied by expanding information about bus rapid transit. That would be the case if the scope of this article covered both types of systems, but the scope of this article is only about the non-bus systems. It wasn't me who established that scope, and I have no particular opinion about whether changing the scope would be desirable. But to me it seems clear that the current title is not adequate for the current scope, and it seems easier to change the title than the scope. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed, BarrelProof is correct. This article is about the rail transport mode only and always has been; the bus rapid transit article did not start off as a subarticle of this one and is not intended as such. Indeed, examining the earliest histories, it seems this article was originally a disjointed group of articles each redundantly covering the same concept under the concept under the differing names until they were merged at this title. The current title does have the issue that it doesn't make clear that it's about rail (and rubber-tired systems are still rail, btw; rubber-tire-on-concrete-rail instead of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, but rail nonetheless), but the proposed title has the issue of using a parenthetical disambiguator when non-parenthetical predisambiguatsd titles are available, a generally non-preferred situation. Personally I'd go with "Rail rapid transit"; it's parallel to "bus rapid transit" (which was so named in an effort to make it seem more like the rail systems), it includes "rail", making the scope clearer, it's non-parenthetical, and it's dialect neutral. But that's just me.oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, I remember that happening, Ii think, where transportation articles were pressed together because they were talking about same thing with different names, and that made less sense than the current arrangement. So the current arrangement is the best stable outcome of combining metro with subway and all the rest together. The trouble, it seems to me, is that while 'rail rapid transit' is a good description of the topic, it is not a common way people refer to it. What is the most common term? Our own article Passenger rail terminology says that a 'rapid transit' is the most common term to refer to railed rapid transit generally, and that 'metro' or 'subway' is somewhat regional. We are getting close to the problem that when you define something you influence it: Do wikipedia articles refer to 'rapid transit' because it's a common term, or because wikipedia calls that kind of transit system 'rapid transit', as we describe in this article? —fudoreaper (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
              • I think it's somewhat the latter; the more regional terms are more common in practical use, and "rapid transit" is itself a bit of a North Americanism. I think Proof is right about "metro" being more common overall, but it still has the parenthetical issue, and isn't used for some of the most important systems. "Rapid transit" isn't WP:PRECISE enough in my mind, because its more expansive modern usage. A descriptive title isn't necessarily a bad thing; many titles of articles are descriptive, as they have no specific name. I think that may be the best approach here, as there are too many different names for the idea of rail rapid transit. oknazevad (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word Metro is associated with this sort of system in only some areas. In London it's the underground or the tube. In New York, the subway. How about Rapid Transit (rail)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 September 2012‎ (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid_transit/Article_name_discussions&oldid=1090576759"