Talk:M201 railway (Croatia)

title

Where did we fish out this name? Nobody uses that in Croatia. The endpoint is Botovo, not the place in Hungary. Indeed, it's more common to see the phrase "Rijeka-Zagreb-Botovo" than just Zagreb-Botovo. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Network Statement document has a map that clearly indicates that the endpoint in Croatia is Botovo. This would be akin to calling the Corridor X railway the Zagreb-Šid railway - almost arbitrary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed that it's a fairly new article that's been moved around already. I'll just fix it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move proposal made moot; no further action undertaken. Yet another impromptu, unilateral move appears to have settled the controversy. If not, I close this with no prejudice whatsoever towards a new move request. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreb–Botovo railway → Zagreb–Gyékényes railway – After a series of undiscussed, but controversial moves we should discuss the "final page name". Reasons please see below. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to go back to Zagreb–Gyékényes railway, with en-dash now, of course. (Sorry for not considering this when I moved this page for the first time a few weeks ago!):

The previous moves had been undiscussed, this should have happened in any case.
The real world does not end at national borders. Wikipedia shouldn't, either. At least not without good reasons.
This page had been declared part of both wikiprojects Croatia AND Hungary way before the last moves, so IMO it should not be moved out of the scope of one of those projects by a single user.
History: This line has been planned in the late 1860's and opened in the 1870's as a railway line "Zákány–Zagreb", (Zákány is a village next to Gyékényes, the station is located between both; I don't know why they renamed the station or what else had happened), I would need to research the details. Anyway, historically there has never been such a thing as a railway line from Zagreb to the village of Botovo; it had always been a railway line to connect the hungarian network (which had reached Gyékényes a few years before with other lines), with Zagreb and the Port of Rijeka. So this line starts/ends there, Gyékényes simply was (different than Šid in those days) the natural starting point for the new line to Croatia.
According to official croatian documents there is NO railway line Zagreb–Botovo, check the government ([1]) and the network operator ([2]). If the articles shall be set up as in official documents, we need even for the croatian part two articles:
- Zagreb–Dugo Selo railway (line M102)
- National Border–Botovo–Dugo Selo railway (line M201)

Additionally we would need a separate article for those few meters on hungarian territory - and consequently Zagreb–Tovarnik railway would need to be split into three separate articles (Which could have been avoided if we all would have sticked to Zagreb–Belgrade railway)... And things would become some way of strange (or even hilarious) in my opinion. As of now things seem to be quite messy to me, no real system any more ...

Issues of real railway traffic: Please check the official schedule of Hrvatske Željeznice, the printed Vozni red 9.12.2012. - 14.12.2013.. Table 20 clearly states two things:
- line 20: Zagreb GK - Dugo Selo - Koprivnica - Gyekenyes (croatian spelling for Gyékényes, but no Botovo!)
- no trains from Botovo to Koprivnica or even Zagreb; the only passenger train that currently runs through Botovo stops at nearby Gyékényes.
It's quite clear that nowadays in Croatia people and institutions discuss a railway line Rijeka–Zagreb–Botovo, because this is the national part of PEC Vb. Funding, planning, building etc. usually is a national task (despite some money from the EU) and Botovo is the closest croatian place to the connecting point with the hungarian part of that corridor, right. So basically Botovo marks the widest extension for that purpose on croatian territory, which is IMO fully correct while talking about renewing an existent track or even building a new one with croatian money. According to legal issues it wouldn't be wise to talk about a new line to Gyékényes, this could be misunderstood for varius reasons, fully agree. But I don't believe this should be the reason to "ignore" the world beyond the border. The existing line definitely runs to and from Gyékényes, in total lying in two countries and run by two network operators. One of the most common things in the world ...

So I do believe that there are many good reasons for moving this page to Zagreb–Gyékényes railway (back to where it came from, but with en-dash now, of course), IMO definitely more reasons than keeping the present name. And if we should do so and keep it as it is, the article should thouroughly be cleaned up and should not be classified as as an international railway line any more. Greetings Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current scope of the article appears to be a case of WP:OR. The Zagreb-Botovo railway is currently classified as two railway lines in Croatia per this M201 (Dugo Selo-Botovo) and M102 (Zagreb main railway station-Dugo Selo). An alternate classification per same document is M2 (Rijeka-Zagreb-Botovo). Therefore the scope is completely arbitrary and therefore represents original research. It would be the best split the article to cover M201 and M102 in meaningful detail and possibly have an article on M2 as a summary of the two plus M202 (Zagreb main railway station-Karlovac-Rijeka) if and when the individual articles develop reasonable contents.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your source (and also my source, just from different place) clearly states for M201 in fourth column (Skraćeni naziv željezničke pruge): "DG – Botovo – Dugo Selo", it does not say "Botovo – Dugo Selo". How shall we handle this? Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split per official classification, sure. The main thing I wanted to be clarified was jurisdiction - if the whole track all the way to Gyékényes is operated by Croatian Railways, then that's fine, but I could find no proof of that. There are occasional references to Gyékényes, but then there are many references to Budapest. Do railways have the concept of control cities? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody has claimed that HŽ operates the track to Gyékényes, of course they don't. The article doesn't mention anything like this. Network operator in Hungary is MÀV. It is a very common thing that a railway line, which is located in two countries, is operated by two network operators. And, of course, usually each of them publishes information only for its own area. Since approximately late 1918 this railway line has been operated by two operators MÀV and JŽ resp. HŽ. But the line all the way to Zagreb had been build and operated for about 45-50 years only by MÀV. All those things are worth to be mentioned in the article (with proper sources of course, that's a bit the problem). And in my opinion these facts do justify that the article covers all the way from Gyékényes to Zagreb, eventhough legal classification on the croatian part has been changed after 1991, maybe again in 2006 (I don't know for 1991-2006). And as far as I know JŽ had classified this railway line as Zagreb GK – Koprivnica DG, not talking about Botovo. In my personal opinion all those things can perfectly be put into one single article Zagreb–Gyékényes railway. Whatever time period we consider and whichever classification we use, it's always the very same track between Zagreb and Gyékényes. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name had implicitly claimed that. And why is it "of course" that they don't, why couldn't there be such a thing? In any case, you see where I'm going with this - we can't really let ourselves descend into all these inferences. The article needs to be sourced, and that's it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't have said "of course they don't". It's the "normal case", but there are a few exceptions. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator of this RM I'm also fine with the decision to move Zagreb–Botovo railway to M201 railway (Croatia), there is no need any more to move it to Zagreb–Gyékényes railway. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M201 railway (Croatia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]