Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 19 February 2015

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work improving references at List of metro systems. Great work! oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations in List of tram ... systems

I recently noticed that you appear to be under the impression that citations added inline next to the article/name in the List of tram and light rail transit systems automatically apply to the entire line in the table, but that's not the case. Via my watchlist, I was aware that you'd been adding citations – mainly for North America – but I had not been checking the details. Every single year-of-opening and length figure needs its own specific inline citation. If the ones you've added also support the year-of-opening and length figures, then you can simply reuse the same citations 2 or 3 times within that line of the table. But Misplaced Pages's policies for references and verifiability require that every item has its own inline citation, because those different items (for a single city) may well come from different sources, at different points in time, and readers need to be able to tell. In the case of the length figures, especially – the recent addition of which was a major change to this longstanding article, which I still don't support – those figures will keep changing in the future for most systems, so not only do they need an inline citation for the stated length figure, but the citation needs to be clearly dated (at least an access date, if no published date is given at the source). That's the only way someone looking over the table can see, for example, that the length figure for system X is from a recent source, but the ones for systems Y and Z are from an article/source published (or accessed) 5 years ago and therefore may be out of date. Having inline citations for every item in the table will make the table look less neat, but accuracy is much more important than neatness.

However, it's already been two months since the major expansion of scope of this list (by adding year and length figures), and I've noticed that almost all of the non-North American systems still cite no sources. As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I intend to delete the "stations" and "length" columns entirely for all but North America very soon, on that basis. I won't do that for North America initially, if you go back through the refs you've added and, if they support the stated stations and length figures, repeat those citations inline within those columns (so that readers of the list will be able to tell which figures are sourced and also will able to replace that source later if they update one of the figures). However, with my deletion of those columns for non-North American systems, it might be better to simply work that info. for N. America into List of rail transit systems in the United States, since the vast majority of tram and light rail systems in North America are also listed in that article (since there are relatively very few tram/LRT systems in Canada and Mexico). The "year" column is also new, but I'll leave that alone, because that is stable for every system, not needing updating in the future. The statistical columns, by contrast, will require regular monitoring by someone (who's going to do it?) for years and years into the future, for updating as needed, to try to keep the list accurate, reflecting system expansions or contractions. Most likely, no one is going to do that, and the list will gradually become more and more out of date in the statistics columns. But at the very least, the statistics columns need their own inline citations, and citations that are formatted to clearly identify the source (not just page title, but whose page; personal/individual fan pages fail WP:RS) and the date, so as to allow editors to judge each source for accuracy and whether it is relatively recent. I appreciate your trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and I hope my stance doesn't discourage you from editing, but Misplaced Pages has way too many editors who add lots and lots of content without giving enough consideration (or, often, any consideration) to the quality of their contributions – under WP's guidelines for referencing and sources. I haven't studied your editing enough to conclude that you are one of those, but I'll just say please avoid becoming one of those. SJ Morg (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that the North American portion is fully cited (as much as possible), I'm going to start a 'Talk' page topic on 'spinning off' that list into its own Wiki page - that was my original intent all along: get citations for those stats so I can just wholesale spin off the North American table to its own page before columns of data start getting deleted.

If there's no objection, then I'll spin off the North American table into its own page in a week or two.

As for adding the citations to every stat, that was my longer term goal - my initial goal was just to get the stats attached to a system. I had planned to go back later and add them across the various rows (and I'll likely still do that before I 'spin off' the North American portion of the table...), so you don't need to do that yourself if you don't want to.

So, again - please don't to anything to the North American portion until I get a chance to spin it off. I'll also suggest not changing the European table yet, as that has enough references already that it might get to the point where it has enough references to support its stats too. Ditto Oceania (maybe we can get Liam Davies to dig up sources for the other two Oceania systems...). In fact, it might be a good idea to not change anything until you've established that there's consensus (WP:Consensus) for it... --IJBall (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you've been working hard on the North American portion, and I was not planning to delete columns from it. I have no objection to its being spun off as a separate list. As to consensus before deleting: This major change to this article – adding hundreds of dates and statistics to a simple list that previously contained no dates and statistics – is still only 2-3 months old, and I don't believe that removing such info. from an article that is several years old, when unsourced, calls for consensus before carrying out. The European section is still about 99.7% unreferenced; and except for China (and North America), most other areas are also unreferenced. Besides, consensus among whom? You and Mattximus appear to be the only two editors who have worked on adding those columns; it's not as though several editors have invested time in them. SJ Morg (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's cool, SJ. You were right about sourcing all of the stats (that's how it's done on the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page, and I intend to do the same for the List of United States light rail systems by ridership when I get the chance (though the table on that page could use its own set of revisions, as I've mentioned on its Talk page...). Basically, my focus is on the North American section, because that's the only one I can do. (I might have taken a stab at Europe too, if I knew more languages, but I don't, so it's probably pretty hopeless...) Once North America is done... well Mattximus is correct - that table probably doesn't need it's own separate Wiki page: it's just that that table should be integrated into some of the other pages, especially Light rail in North America‎ and Light rail in the United States pages. That will be my next project, once I've finished North American table in the List of tram and light rail transit systems. And, who knows - maybe doing that section correctly will inspire others to source the other continent tables... --IJBall (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Date reformatting

Hello IJBall, thank you for your edits Helsinki Metro article. I've reverted the reformatting of dates because of WP:ENGVAR, such changes should not be made, and by making them inconsistencies were introduced. Please check, and then follow the date formatting that is already in use; the allowed formats are described in WP:MOSDATE. In most (non-US centric articles), this is likely to be the international format. Once again, thank you for your edits and getting involved. —Sladen (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Light Rail systems

Hey there, I thought I'd reply on your talk page regarding the List of Light Rail systems as it doesn't seem appropriate at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems. The content was split - incorrectly - out of the page Interurban on 1 October 2013, this content was then placed into List of Light Rail systems. All I did was put the content back where it came from and redirect the page List of Light Rail systems to List of tram and light rail transit systems. What is your problem with that? And how would you have done it? Liamdavies (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Liam, I didn't read that article all the way through, but in perusing it seemed like the focus was on historical interurban systems rather than on current LRT systems. On that page's Talk page, I had proposed that the page be retitled as either "List of interurban systems" (as the focus was very definitely on interurbans, over LRTs) or possibly even "History of interurban systems". Now, I didn't know about the splitting out of the Interurban article part of the story, and if the content was placed back in that article, then that is also a perfectly good solution. But, from my glancing over at the List of Light Rail systems before, it looked to me that it wasn't that that page should be "merged" with the Tram & Light rail list, but that it should just have been retitled. However, if it's been put back in the Interurban article where it belongs, then that's all for the good. Problem solved. I'll go ahead and delete that topic from the Tram & Light rail list page. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It just seemed too 'good' to be a fresh 57k article, so I dug around a bit and found the whole 'Interurban' article cached elsewhere, from there it pieced together. I agree the content was unsuitable for anything light rail related, far to historical in nature, but figured the easiest/simplest thing was to put it back. Liamdavies (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Light rail in Sydney

Hey, what they mean by that line is that the vehicles operate in street, rather than on a dedicated railway ROW. It's for a very short section, and to my knowledge, is not shared with other motor vehicles. If you classify that as tram, then pretty much all the French and USA light rail systems would also be tram/streetcar. Liamdavies (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Liam, nah - if the street-running isn't shared with cars, then it's not "tram" - San Diego's Trolley has a section like that: in the road, but in exclusive lanes not shared with cars. It just wasn't clear from the Sydney reference whether the street-running was in shared traffic or not. --IJBall (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems, I didn't think that's what you meant, but thought I'd clarify. I think the line between lightrail and tram is so blurred it's often hard to distinguish. In Australia we have a slightly more rigid usage (traditionally speaking, light rail is all the rage now ), for example the Melbourne light rails are both former railway lines, but the dedicated median running with in a wide plantation is still considered tram. I find the situation in New Orleans to be a case in point, if built pretty much how it is but now, I have little doubt it would be considered light rail, but as it's a legacy system it's streetcar.

I'm still looking for a cite for Adelaide, but it's proving rather elusive, the closest I can do is find old stats pre-expansion, and add the two extensions to that, but am unsure how close to WP:SYNTH that is. I've measured it with Google Earth, and 15km is right, so I think we can leave it for the time being, but we are going to need a cite sooner than later. Any particular area of research you'd like me to undertake? I'm off uni until the start of next year so have some time free. Liamdavies (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question! I was working on references for the European tram systems most recently, but got bogged down in the German systems (which I still have to straighten out...) when I sort of suspended that project while I got busy at work. So if you want to try to dig up references for any of the European systems (esp. those below Germany), that would be greatly appreciated!!

On my end, I need to dig up a reference on 'Premetros' for someone else on Wiki, so if you happen to run across something good on that topic, please let me know!  ;) --IJBall (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rapid transit ridership list-USA

This has been discussed a couple times before, but I thought I'd bring it up again, since there never seems to be any change. The lack of light rail on the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page is confusing. For cities like Boston, Philadelphia and LA, by excluding the light rail figures, we're not showing the system's proper ridership. They work together in a united rapid transit system. We know not all light rail is the same, but light rail tied to a heavy rail system, and independent light rail systems with exclusive right-of-way, should be included IMO. Aside from the locomotive used, these function the same as heavy rail. I know your preference is to keep these out entirely, but either we move your list to "List of United States heavy rail systems by ridership" or we keep the page name and add in light rail systems. As it currently stands, we're not presenting the information properly.--Comayagua99 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points. The first is that the information for the "combined" ridership figures can be made available - the best place to do it is at each of the systems' Wiki pages (i.e. the combined 'heavy rail' and 'light rail' ridership for Boston, L.A., etc. can (and should) be presented at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) pages, etc.). Second, I'm not totally adverse to including the combined figures even at the Rapid Transit Ridership pages, but if we're going to do that the best way would be as a 'Note' (i.e. with a "ref group=note" code) to the Rapid transit ridership figure - that way the table is "pure" in using the "heavy rail" ridership figures (which is how the figures are actually presented by APTA, and how the pages are categorized via the page's title) as intended, but the information that you might want to get out there is still included (just in the form of a 'Note'). --IJBall (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Would it be a good/acceptable idea to put another column in the table that contains either a total PT or total RT figure? This would keep the list 'pure' while giving the wider context of the PT network that a system operates in. Liamdavies (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose adding another column (pretty much all of the Ridership page tables are already over-"squished" with info as it is...). And the pages are very clear what info they're presenting (e.g. 'rapid transit' vs. 'light rail' riderships). Another solution might be a new Ridership table page (for "Total rail transit ridership"?...), but then the issue becomes do you include commuter rail figures too, or not, and if not, what would the title of such a page be?...

The fact is, there are just a few heavy rail-light rail 'mixed' systems like this, and I'm of the opinion that we should mostly leave the existing Ridership pages as they are now, rather than try and cater to the few exceptional systems that are out there... --IJBall (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, your original suggestion of a note would probably be the cleanest option then. Liamdavies (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about systems that combine heavy rail and light rail, but also the systems that are light rail (those with exclusive right-of-way) that function the same as heavy rail. This is a list of rapid transit systems, not just heavy rail, therefore, they should be included. If we want to keep a list that is purely heavy rail, then I believe we should change the title to "heavy rail". Rapid transit includes the above mentioned light rail systems, and currently, our list does not, which is where I believe we're not properly presenting the information.--Comayagua99 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Best to make that case over at the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership Talk page, then. FTR, I'll oppose including Light rail systems over there, but I'll be much more supportive of a potential name change (to clarify the page's true focus), provided consensus can be reached on the Talk page for a better title for that page... --IJBall (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking your time to read my arguments, we need more people's opinion on this matter at the moment. It's just me and Massypacer hammering it out.Terramorphous (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii

What's up? Honolulu project not a "metro system?" -Fluous (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks more like light rail to me, and it's currently listed in the Light rail in the United States "under construction" section. There's a discussion about this at the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Talk Page - at best it looks like it might qualify as a light metro, as it won't have the passenger volumes generally associated with "heavy rail" (aka. metro) systems. At the least, I think this one needs to go to the metro list Talk page before inclusion in the metro 'under construction' list. --IJBall (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

List of metro systems

Hi, IJBall.

I think you and I and a few others are interested in a good article at List of metro systems. It is a knotty subject, and it needs the cooperation of experienced editors. I am ready to help, but I am not ready to engage in years of fruitless discussions with editors who change their position by the minute, and who clearly need a remedial course in WP. I have been following this article for many years, and it has lost a few excellent editors over this. A lot of the energy dissipated on the talk page would be better used for research and for finding proper sources. Which often can be quite a learning experience.

Thank you for reverting the reverted UITP edit. The old source is either gone because someone cleaned up the UITP site, or it is gone for a reason, namely not to clash with the proposed standard. I have been involved in a few international standards, and it's no work for easily excitable people. Whether we like it or not, the cited UITP definition is the last word. If we find a more current one, we should use that. You and I may think that the definition is too broad. It is our right to think that, but our opinion should not influence our work. We need to work with what is handed to us.

Also, I work as a journalist (not in this field, one with tires) and from daily experience, my high opinion of published sources dropped considerably.

I can be reached via my talk site, also via email. I have lived and worked around the world on many continents and in many cultures, and I am not interested at all in advancing a certain city. Best, BsBsBs 07:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest - at this point, I'm not sure there's much more I can meaningfully contribute. I'm coming at this from the general view that the List of metro systems is already too long and inclusive, and the loss of the UITP reference is likely to only exacerbate this problem. Seoul has already been bundled together. And now is looks like even systems that share actual rail tracks (e.g. with commuter rail, or freight rail) are going to be included now too. At this point, my position is that if this trend continues, we might as well just rename the list "List of metropolitan rapid transit systems", and be done with it. So, as I said - I'm not sure how much help I'm going to be from here on in... --IJBall (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Very true. That's why I have many times (even years ago) suggested that editors need to decide what they want, a (narrow) list of subways/undergrounds/tubes, or a burgeoning list of "Metropolitan rapid transit SYSTEMS." Both are possible and supportable by sources. The current situation definitely isn't. The UITP appears to go in the latter direction. I will compile a chart of definitions and put it up in talk. I just notice that neither the NTD nor the APTA actually define Metro (at least not in the often cited defs), which may come as quite a shock to some.

The list appears to have fallen victim to boosters of certain cities. In search for extra mileage, definitions were widened and cans of worms were opened.

As for editing here, please don't give up! The page needs all the sane people it has. BsBsBs (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut

Pls Contact me directly. Will be traveling and out of time for a lot of typing. Writing court documents did cost too much time....

Thanks, B

BsBsBs (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do, if needed. But I suspect things will mostly settle at List of metro systems now (at least, I hope!...), so any changes can probably wait for a little while... --IJBall (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. I do not want to give new openings for attack. If new systems are added, I suggest we deny anything without refs. I'll put a sources needed tag up, and we should start removing unsourced systems. That usually gets attention fast. We are not their source diggers. I'll be at the West Coast in a few weeks.BsBsBs (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the improve tag from March 2010 should suffice. I hate tag plastering. BsBsBs (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Belgium

what do you mean about "visual improvement"? you jugde state flags if they are nice or not? flag of belgium has 13:15 dimension and it is written in legal act so your comment is at least redundant. - Aight 2009 (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2014

You have to look at the context of the table - making Belgium's flag smaller affects things like how the country names line up in a way that is less than visually appealing. Aside from that, even the Flag of Belgium page states that the 3:2 flag is used much more commonly than the "official" 13:15 flag which is, "Technically the national flag, but rarely seen." There is no need for a table like the List of tram and light rail transit systems to use the "official" flag, especially when it needlessly messes up the visual aspects of the table. Thank you for the Warsaw entry, though... --IJBall (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't make this mistake because it is so popular. if you look at flag of denmark or norway at this table you will see that also these flags are shorter than the rest of them in this table. - Aight 2009 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is, the "official" (relatively smaller) flags are used basically all the time in the case of Denmark and Norway. That isn't so with Belgium, where in fact the "normal" sized the flag is "Much more common than the official version." Again, in the case of the List of tram and light rail transit systems there is no compelling "need" to use the "official" flag of Belgium over the "common" version. --IJBall (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seoul removal

Why Seoul? We shold keep the three most used systems. Or the most extensive ones. Seoul is in the top 3 either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.112.188 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Then put Seoul back in, and remove Shanghai or New York. London should remain, as the oldest system. Regardless, we can only allow three images above the table from now on... --IJBall (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if London stays, then we'll put the three oldest systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.112.188 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be another option. I'd maybe take this to the Talk page to gather consensus on which three images are best for the page. --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This what I think of you for all your hard work on Misplaced Pages for editing light rail systems in North America.

MTSRider18 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! --IJBall (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Budapest Metro total length

Hi. According to the references (listed in Budapest Metro article), the total route lenght is 38.4 kilometres (4.4 for Line 1, 10.3 for Line 2, 16.3 for Line 3 and 7.4 for Line 4). I think we should change the data in List of metro systems article. Best wishes. --Rovibroni (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The line lengths listed at the Budapest Metro article include a figure for I think it is Line 2 that is track length not "route length" (and the lengths given for both Lines 2 & 3 are from references that are not from the operator, BKK, which makes them suspect in my mind...). The two references (from BKK) listed at List of metro systems give a combined route length for Lines 1-3 of 30.8 km, and a length for Line 4 of 7.4 km - that yields a total combined route length of 38.2 km, which is the figure given both on the List of metro systems, and at Budapest Metro's article. --IJBall (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked the references, the data for Line 3 is route length ("forgalmi hossz" in the source, lit. means "traffic length"), which is 16.3 kilometres. The track length ("építési hossz" in the source, lit. means "built length") is 17.3 km. Data for Line 2 is "forgalmi vágányok építési hossza" in the source, lit. means "traffic tracks built length". According to a BKV (today subsidiary of BKK) report the total route length for Lines 1-3 is 31.4 km, the track length is 34.8 km (however other BKV/BKK report shows 30.8 km, as you noticed). I seek some reliable source about the exact length of the lines.--Rovibroni (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For right now, I'll take the 2011 report from BKK as the most "authoritative" number available (esp. over the BKV number from 2006). In any case, any total system length figure quoted right now for Budapest is going to represent a WP:SYNTHESIS issue, because it requires at least two (or in the case of the 'Lines' table, four!) separate references in order to "infer" the correct value. Frankly, until BKK issues a new report that gives the new total system length, including Line 4, we are not going to have a "definitive" figure, and there's going to be some uncertainly in the system length value. But, for now, I strongly believe we should stick with the two references currently used for the system length as the most "accurate" figure(s) we have currently... --IJBall (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we have to wait for the next BKK report. However the article needs reliable sources (the current one is not "official") about the exact length for Line 1, Line 2 and Line 3 separately. I believe there are some books about them (published for the openings by the planning company or the BME). I'll have a try.--Rovibroni (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Budapest Metro article, the reference for the length of Line 1 is actually BKK as well, so Line 1's reference is good. So you'll only need to find better references for Lines 2 and 3. --IJBall (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

One follow-up point: Even if good references are found for the lengths of all 4 lines, the sum of those 4 figures won't necessarily be a better figure for the total system length than the sum for the length from the two references used currently, due to WP:SYNTHESIS. Thus, I think we are definitely best off sticking with the 38.2 km figure, and the two references, for right now, at least until BKK puts out a new report and we can get a single-reference source for the total system length of the Budapest Metro. --IJBall (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think in this case we can change the total length data in the Lines table if a better source says other length for Line 2 or Line 3 ("total" section with the note, clarifies the difference), and as you explained, we should keep the data from BKK (as the most authentic source) in the infobox (38.2 km).--Rovibroni (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Agreed!  :) --IJBall (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

LA Metro lines

Hi IJ, seeing as you're working on the Los Angeles Metro pages I thought I would pass on some hearsay from the head of metro operations. When the regional connector opens the name "Gold line" will disappear. The Expo line will take on the color of gold and continue into East Los Angeles. The blue line will continue into Pasadena and beyond. Some point after that or even possibly before, the names of the lines will be changed to simply letters. See this draft concept map (link). My understanding is this is all but approved. Seeing that none of this is announced or official, you can't cite it yet, however, considering some of what you're adding is counter to this, I thought you should at least be aware of what's probably coming. It's up to you if you want to make any changes. Thanks much for all of your work on these pages, it's really appreciated! Lexlex (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh - can't say that I like that! Thanks for letting me know, though. But I think what I've written is OK for now, as it's what's indicated on Metro's maps for the Regional Connector... --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Metro Systems Ridership addition

Do you think it is okay for me to add all of the ridership information on List of Metro Systems article? No one (other than you) seems to be objecting. Staglit (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'd appreciate it if you would at least work up a partial (or full) 'mock up' of the revised table at your Sandbox page, and then link over to it from the List of metro systems Talk page, so that we can comment on the final product. For example, I am pretty picky about things like the order of the columns and table layout, so I'd like to get a look at what you're proposing for the page, before I withdraw any objections. (Also, you'll probably want to link to it from the Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides page as well, as that article will simply be turned in to a 'Redirect' page, if everyone likes what you've done with merging the Ridership data into List of metro systems.) So, show us what it will look like - once we get a good-looking merge of that data in to the Metro systems table-list, I'll withdraw any objections... --IJBall (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though I agree with the merge, IJBall is right; consensus is not about the majority, it is about making a decision based on mutual acceptance (ideally). To this end the talkpage discussion should go on for at least one week and a 'mock up' should be created either in userspace or on the talkpage. Liamdavies (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IJBall, I've done a test here : https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Staglit/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes to that (i.e. switched column order) in a way that I think is an improvement. I really would urge you to post links to this at both Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides. I'd also appreciate it if you would add a few more entries (especially those with multiple 'Notes', as the ones with 'Notes' will be the hardest to fit in to the table, and so they'll be the most important ones to check and see in the new table...). I would also you urge to keep working up your version over there until you've completed the revised table - then when you are done with it over in your Sandbox, you'll be able to do one 'cut & paste' to bring your final version over List of metro systems all at once... --IJBall (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Why are access dates "better" in ISO style? As for changing the dates, I thought both mdy and dmy were used, and picked one to change them all to. Looking back, it seems only mdy was used, so my bad. — lfdder 13:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly prefer ISO style for reference 'accessdates': 1) it differentiates them from the regular reference 'dates'; and 2) it makes it much easier to see how "old" references are in ISO style, as the 'year' is listed first in the 'accessdate' parameter. I personally really dislike it when articles have both their references' 'date' and 'accessdate' parameters in exactly the same date format as it makes it harder for the reader to easily pick one out from the other. So, I almost always do either mdy or dmy format (depending on the page) for references' 'dates', and ISO for their 'accessdates'. I realize that's a stylistic preference of mine, but I think it's a logical and reasonable one. --IJBall (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Makes sense to me. — lfdder 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Revised List of metro systems table

Hello! I was just wondering if you could maybe clean up the table in my sandbox. I haven't a clue how to make new rows, so some help would be great (like for new york, seoul, london, ect.) CTAГЛИT (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My Sandbox! — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Staglit - I will likely just use my test edit table at the top of your Sandbox as the basis of a new table. But getting all of the old table over to that version will be a pretty big job - it'll likely be this weekend, or possibly next week, before I'll be able to tackle a job that big! But I'll starting working on that Friday... Once I'm done, I'll put a final version of it up at my own Sandbox page so you can take a look at it. --IJBall (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Erfurt Stadtbahn

As requested, I've had a look at your draft article. It seems pretty good to me, although I haven't yet reviewed it in detail. I'm a bit busy this week, but I will create a Bonn Stadtbahn article on either 30 or 31 May. In June-July, I'll be visiting Germany (and Europe) for the first time in nearly five years, and while I'm there, I'll be checking out some things of interest to me, eg trains and trams. After I return home, I'll have a closer look at all the Stadtbahn articles, with a view to improving them and setting them out in a more uniform format. In the meantime, your draft article looks like a good model to follow. Keep up the good work! Bahnfrend (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating Erfurt Stadbahn Polyglot (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridership

Hi IJBall!

I was just wondering, you've been doing a lot of work on List of Metro systems with notes and such, and I was just thinking it might be easier for you to add all the new things to the to be added chart with ridership on my or your sandbox page. That way, it won't be as much work when transferring all of the content.

ThanksStaglit (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the opposite, actually! - That I'd try to finish off the referencing before you try to tackle the "merge". In any case, I'll likely continue putting the final few ref's up at the existing List of metro systems. If a few of them get lost during the merge project, it'll be pretty easy for me to go back and restore them, after the fact... But thanks for thinking of me! --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess i'll keep an eye out for your edits so I can add them to my new chart; I'm sure this will work out just fine, we can work out any kinks later if we have to. Staglit (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seoul metro

You reverted my edit and said that the issue regarding the "total" row "will be resolved". Well then where is the ongoing discussion on the talk page that is in the process of resolving this (with or without voting requested)? Ancient archive doesn't count - that is a past/resolved history AFAIK ongoing unresolved discussion is not archived - archiving is essentially ending the discussion and declaring consensus - there has to be something on the talk page). —Loginnigol (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not resolved yet - the contents of the "Totals" row has to be converted in to a note that will be attached to the systems operating in Seoul - that was what the consensus on the issue was. That will be done in the near future. Please don't come in and disrupt a consensus that took months to achieve. Just be patient, and the issue will be resolved, likely in the next week or two. --IJBall (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How am I "disrupting a consensus"? Theere's nothing on the talk page! You don't seem to understand others' point of view: if the talk page is empty then others cannot magically know that there is a yet-to-be-completed editing process going on. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Check the archives. This a years-long controversy about Seoul. This latest consensus is an attempt to resolve it. --IJBall (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is a 'Note' attached to that 'Totals' row that you deleted that explains exactly what its purpose is. --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, this was the "push" I needed - the 'Totals' row has now been converted to a 'Note' attached to Seoul's systems, and has been deleted from the table. Hopefully, this will satisfy your earlier concerns... --IJBall (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks! —Loginnigol (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hey IJBall, an IP User (87.21.150.95) has just deleted everything on My Sandbox Page saying 'IT TOOK ME HALF AN HOUR TO CHANGE THE DATES TO FA STANDARD: FCK OFF. YOURE ON YOUR OWN') He had helped a lot with adding content, and I really have no clue what that means or what FA standard is, and what I did to upset him. Do you have any ideas?Staglit (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Staglit - the IP user started changing the 'accessdates' in the references from 'ISO' format to 'dmy' format, unprompted and without discussion. I reverted those changes because, 1) your project wasn't about messing with the references, and 2) it took me a long time to get the List of metro systems references into an acceptable WP:MOSDATE format, and I didn't want that changed without strong consensus to alter the changes I had made to those references over months.

As a result of that, I'm going to go leave a vandalism warning on the IP user's Talk page - if the IP user messes with your project again, we should definitely report it... --IJBall (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave a report if he does anything again, maybe he will come around. He just changed the system length on the Vienna Metro to Penis Length, so I imagine he won't.Staglit (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Metro Istanbul

Hi,

I hope you like this map in Istanbul Metro (Infobox) better. Premétro line T4 is in very light colour now (as the other tramway-lines). This map looks better and is more detailed than the "geo-map".

Kind regards (R1410 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC))

Yes, I think that works much better than the original version (that I replaced with the 'geo-map'). My only quibble is that I don't like that the T4 line is as "thick" as the other Metro lines, rather than being the same ("thinner") thickness as the other tram lines on the map... but that is quite a minor complaint. One point though – I have seen no one refer to the T4 line as being "Premetro"; even the operator refers to the line as a "tramway", and they seem to consider it to be the same as the T1 line. For what it's worth... Thanks for working that new map up though - looks good! --IJBall (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nanjing Metro Line S1

It's a metro line. Albeit more in tune with BART or the Berlin S-bahn, with its longer stop spacing the large reach out of the city. It is fully grade separated and isolated from the other rail services. It uses B type cars in 6 car formation; the same sizing and loading gauges of the Beijing Subway cars. Ninggao intercity railway (宁高城际轨道交通) seems to be a dated term, the media seems to always refer it as the Airport Line (机场线). The branding is very similar to the S-XX and U-XX dynamic you see in Berlin or the numbered urban lines and the named suburban lines in Beijing.Terramorphous (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess I have to accept that, even though the different branding bothers me. Last question - what are the peak headways on it?... --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being such an awesome help for the Ridership Chart! Staglit (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Final Switch

Hello - again.

I've noticed you finished on your ridership reference split, and other small edits, and I'm just wondering what else needs to be done exactly so I'm prepared for the move. Staglit (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just one last thing: copy over the "Under construction" section to your Sandbox. Then I'll separate those references in to their own section (I think there's only two of them!). Once that is done, I think it is ready to be copy-and-pasted over the the List of metro systems, and then we are done!! :D --IJBall (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, IJBall, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~ Anastasia (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trams in Rouen

Hello IJBall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trams in Rouen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm not at all clear why the Old Rouen article should go here, and not the new one, which would seem more sensible to me. The Instanbul article you linked to covers both old and new as far as I can see. Thank you. GedUK  11:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated that you added map, however...

While it was correct for you to change the map from the Russian version to the English version in the Timeline of the war in Donbass article, the article is a WP:LIST and it had already been established that it does not belong in a timeline article as it already exists in the main article (being War in Donbass). Please see the relevant section on the talk page if you feel that there are policy or guideline rationales for duplicating it on the timeline. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sao Paulo State elections & Sao Paulo Metro

Sorry, but what in God's name do the Sao Paulo State elections have to do with the new line 15 of the Sao Paulo subway, which had been inaugurated yesterday? I really didn't understand. And what kind of reference do you "approve"? Thank you. MarcosPassos (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary website for the Sao Paulo Metro is this one: – lately, when one tries to access it, there's a message about the bulk of the website getting shut down for the state elections this year (today, I can't seem to access this website at all). Anyway, that website is where you used to be able to get a primary reference for total system length and total number of stations for the Sao Paulo Metro, but it's apparently down until after the elections are over this fall. To answer your question, you need a reference that quotes the new total system length and new total number of stations to be usable – a reference that simply says that two stations opened, without quoting that there are 67 stations in the system won't do, as that would represent a WP:SYNTH situation. But my general point is this – there is no pressing need for the List of metro systems to be up-to-the-minute accurate with its figures – if you can't find a reference like I outlined above, I wouldn't worry as one will likely became available with the new correct figures in just a couple of months. This Sao Paulo situation, and the lack of easy references for the new figures, is not unique and has happened at the List of metro systems before (and will surely happen again, down the road). --IJBall (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing – it would seem that Line 15 is a monorail. If so, it won't be included in the List of metro system article's figures anyway: we don't count monorails in with our figures there (see, for example: Kuala Lumpur Rapid Rail entry). --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-detailed answer. All points taken. I just disagree that we wouldn't "need for the list to be 'up-to-the-minute' accurate with its figures". We are in the internet age, so we do need very fast updates, hehe. Cheers! MarcosPassos (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)

I haven't blocked FutureTrillionaire this time but I have reminded him of the 1RR per 24 hours restriction and thought you might have forgotten it also. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point. --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uitp.org

Hello ! I have put http://www.uitp.org to the noteboard https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RSN. I don't think such membership associations can be used as reliable sources. And I thought we had established S-Bahn in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen as metro. Please respond at the noteboard. Boeing720 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index

With all due respect, my last edits removing the “Party of Governor” and “House balance” columns were perfectly consistent with your very own argument to me: that all information in each of these columns was already available at-a-glance in the Political party strength in U.S. states page, which I had not previously visited. Never mind, though, because I won’t be wasting any more time editing this page. For the record, a mere handful of people opposing my actions does not amount to “consensus strongly disagree” with me. Derekgts (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that wasn't the argument at all. The point was that readers at the Cook Partisan Voting Index want simple information – namely: based on the state's CPVI, what party does the governor of that state belong to, are both Senators from that state from the same party or is the Senate delegation "split", and what is the make up that state's Congressional delegation? Your edit to split the Senate column in to two to show the "Senior" and "Junior" Senator actually made it harder to pick out the details about a particular state's Senate delegation, which is why two editors (myself included) reverted it. So, the overall point was that your particular edit made the table harder to read AND also that that level of detail basically wasn't appropriate to an article like Cook Partisan Voting Index and was redundant information with information that could already be found at the Political party strength in U.S. states article where the level of detail that you wanted was appropriate.

The thing to remember when editing Misplaced Pages is that some of your edits, no matter how much effort you put in to them, may not get consensus support, no matter how much you personally think they improve an article, and not to take it personally when that happens, as you seemed to here. But I appreciate you taking the time to post here, as that was all I really wanted in the first place when you reverted the second time was a discussion about why these edits probably weren't the best way to go here... --IJBall (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Louroujina

1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG quite clearly states that flag icons are permitted in settlement infoboxes for the country and top-level administrative division.
2. See here.

213.7.22.7 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question into the Talk page of WP:INFOBOXFLAG about this – the first two paragraphs make of INFOBOXFLAG it quite clear that flags should pretty much never be used in Infoboxes. Paragraphs #3 & #4 delineate a few exceptions to when they can be used. The first sentence of Paragraph #5, which you are quoting, appears to completely contradict the first two paragraphs of the policy. In general, many city articles on en Misplaced Pages do not use flags in the Infobox, so I'd like more clarification on this. Let's see if there's any response at MOS:ICONS Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but the flags are used across all of these articles. Would it not be better to keep them until that point is clarified? 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the flags as they were used at the Louroujina article Infobox "add value" (and they were used there in such a way that I've seen reverted at other similar articles), so I really don't think they're necessary there. But whatever is said at the MOS:ICONS Talk page will hopefully clarify the issue... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say they help in (re)cognition. I don't know if that's a good argument for having them there. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've seen flag icons used all over the place, e.g. in language infoboxes (list of countries where the language is official), see e.g. German language. It seems this guideline is followed rather loosely or selectively. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

A year and a half ago, you mentioned the possibility of nominating Politics of light rail in North America for deletion (well redirection back to main article). Since then you have made some small additions to the article. Still, I think merge, redirection or deletion are in order. Do you still agree with redirecting this back to Light rail in North America? Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd still support a merge (of the referenced material at Politics of light rail in North America – the unreferenced material should just be cut). But now that the Politics of light rail in North America article has been substantially trimmed, I'd no longer have an objection to merging it back to Light rail in North America . So I think it's time to start a new Talk page topic on the merge proposal (I guess that would require updating the 'date' parameter on the 'merge' tag....) – this time, I'd support such a merge. --IJBall (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello IJBall, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Istanbul Metro stations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Topkapı, Menderes and Maltepe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chicago 'L'

this is the official website of cta http://www.transitchicago.com/riding_cta/service_overview.aspx Jasstew January 17, 2015‎

Hello, system and check the links are totally different there's a track length of 224.1 mi.² for the Chicago CTA and is the second largest transit system in the nation please refer to your own sources and you will see! If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me or to do further research Jasstew February 15, 2015‎

Flag icons

Hi. I put a draft together, and I'd like to get your opinion on it before I go further with it. It's on my sandbox. Also, I'm not sure what the next step is, should I post it on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)? Please give any feedback on my sandbox talk page, that way I can keep all the discussions in one place. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly where is this consensus for the massive alterations to flags in articles? Chillum 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it on my own: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. It would help to mention that link in your edit summary. Chillum 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

From the discussions I saw at various locations (e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons was one), there were about a half a dozen editors from the Canadian city articles (though most may have been from Edmonton, I don't know...) who opposed the use of flag icons, and only two that supported them. The bigger issue to me is the inconsistency at Canada city articles where, as of approx. a month ago, many had them, and many did not – as of now, Edmonton and a few others still don't have them. My suggestion is that this should get hashed out, once and for all, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian communities so that a consensus solution is applied across all Canadian city articles, regardless of the outcome reached.

Regardless, though, fights like these will continue thanks to the utter wretcheness of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy which thanks to opposition to reforming it should now instead just be utterly eliminated, as it is a worthless guideline/policy in its present form IMO. --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the need for consistency and know just how contentious finding a single way of doing something can be. Good luck. Chillum 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Feb 2015

Having done a 3RR since two hours is still doing a 3RR! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have. I, OTOH, did one edit (to restore the previous pre-January 30 consensus at Kitchener, Ontario), and one revert (which is not in the same ballpark as your 3RR). Regardless, you have already gotten blocked once for behavior like this. It would behoove you to dial it down before if gets you in to trouble. Consider this my last bit of constructive advice on this topic to you. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise you both equally to head warnings of edit warring violation. I am personally involved in the content dispute to some degree and will not be taking any action. However another admin will not hesitate to block either of you if this continues. I am leaving this message on both of your talk pages. Chillum 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm done on this, don't worry. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles Metro --> "Placard View" is the point of the pictures_"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures-2015-02-18T00:37:00.000Z">

It may seem unusual of course to call the pictures I put up as "Placard View", but take note: The pictures were not meant to show anything based of the platform. The pictures main point is the placard. As a result, naming them as "Platform View" may seem compatible, but if you take a look into Gold Line sections of Pico/Aliso Station and the region from Atlantic Station to Maravilla Station, the signs I put them up as (which is the ONLY sign they actually have) is not Platform View; they are signs standing out of a pole located in a reachable distance; they are nothing to do with the platform. But putting this as an issue, if we do not uniformly name the main placard images the same for all the stations, there would be issues of disorganization (even if you may disagree, I'd agree). As a user, I believe uniformity is a must for metro station pages. Naming them all as platform view wouldn't be correct because certain sections clearly has placard images only. If we name "Placard View" for all the LA Metro pages instead, it would work because all the images would signify what it actually represent of: Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I believe the word "Platform View" is illegitimate. I strongly recommend to revert the names back, or rename the station images with a legit name such as "Placard Sign of the Station". HanSangYoon (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)_"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures"> _"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures">

Two things – first, Secondarywaltz is correct: these aren't called "placards"; second, my advice would be to make all of the Infobox images uniform across all of the L.A. Metro station articles so that they all are actually "platform views" (that include the station's signage) images. But the point remains: "Placard view" is an incorrect caption for these images, as the station signs aren't called "placards". --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored my point completely. I repeat my stance that platform view is an illegitamate way to describe these photos. SecondaryWaltz is actually (and for now, I'll add that's its my opinion) that it is false. What does placard mean? "A sign of notice, as one posted Ina public place OR carried by a demonstrater or picketer." (YBM SISA Dictionary). Now what does a platform mean? "A horizontal surface, or a structure of a horizontal surface squally raised above the level of a surrounding area." (YBM SISA Dictionary) Then you add this fact: What was the point of the pictures with the placards in the middle? Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I hereby say Platform View is the wrong way to describe these photos. It's logic. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that Misplaced Pages is governed by Consensus, and you now have two editors that disagree with your interpretation. You can continue ignore what we're saying, and continue to go down the path your on, but I don't think it'll go well for you.

On my end, I reiterate that my preference would be for these Infobox station images for the L.A. Metro station articles to all be platform views that include the station signage in the images. --IJBall (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think that going in a favorable reason is superior to a reasonable and a logical reason...that really questions me of how you edit these Misplaced Pages articles by going with favorism. It does not matter if you personally like it or not. It does not matter if pluralistic forms of people like it or not. What matters is rules. What matters is logic. In Misplaced Pages, nothing goes by favorism, particularly an article in public exhibition. If you believe there is reason that could properly counter my logic of the definition of placards and platforms, go ahead and write it out. But it seems you don't have one. I will wait for a reasonable response, and if it fails, I will revert the edits all as a defense to logical terms of placard views. If this issue severes, I do not care if this is going to get any worse for you or me, but I am willing to take this to the next level by bringing in officials of Misplaced Pages. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. My discussions with you on this are done. --IJBall (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)