| Revision as of 03:21, 10 May 2009 editRFBailey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,171 edits comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:53, 10 May 2009 edit undoPondle (talk | contribs)5,366 edits →May 2009Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Both sides are close to breaking ] on this, so don't say you haven't been warned. --] (]) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | Both sides are close to breaking ] on this, so don't say you haven't been warned. --] (]) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Given the 3RR issue, I've reported this at ] ] (]) 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:53, 10 May 2009
Metro system
The edit war over explaining that this isn't a rail-based system was not only very tedious, but also completely pointless. The opening sentence of the article clearly states that this is a bus-based system. I fail to see why any explanation of this is necessary--and certainly not in a hatnote: that's not their intended purpose at all. --RFBailey (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
May 2009
As I've explained, the vast majority of articles titled X Metro will be metro systems. This is not. It's a bus route. All I'm doing is explaining that. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The lead already explains that it's a BRT system, so further repetition is unnecessary and looks like an attempt to "make a point". This argument was settled in February last year, so I fail to see what's going to be achieved by re-opening it- please see WP:POINT. Pondle (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The point is that it's not a metro system. Please stop being so unconstructive. And it was not settled, I still maintain the point. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I direct you to User_talk:Welshleprechaun/Archive2#Swansea_Metro. Please stop disrupting the page by perpetuating an old argument, or I'll have to take this further. Pondle (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to be broken! Take it further, I still maintain this information is justified. Omitting the information is misleading readers and I'm starting to think that's your intention. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I direct you to User_talk:Welshleprechaun/Archive2#Swansea_Metro. Please stop disrupting the page by perpetuating an old argument, or I'll have to take this further. Pondle (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The point is that it's not a metro system. Please stop being so unconstructive. And it was not settled, I still maintain the point. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The opening clearly stated that this is a bus system, so why does that need clarification that it doesn't run on rails? The disambiguation page Metro lists various different types of uses of the term, including systems such as the Midland Metro which are not entirely grade-separated, and even for public transport generally in places as diverse as West Yorkshire and Seattle. So the sentences "Contrary to its name, it is not a metro system" and "Rather than an actual metro system which runs on rail and is grade separated" are at best confusing, and at worst factually incorrect. If Swansea Council want to call it a Metro, then that's up to them.
Also, does the article on the Austin Metro need such a disclaimer, given that it has "Metro" in the name? Of course not. We should not presume a lack of intelligence on the part of readers.
On the other hand, that the system is not grade-separated is encyclopaedic information and should be retained in the article somewhere.
Both sides are close to breaking WP:3RR on this, so don't say you haven't been warned. --RFBailey (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Given the 3RR issue, I've reported this at ANI Pondle (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)