Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An IP editor made two changes to Tokyo Metro Yurakucho Line ([1] and [2]), and another editor reverted them using VandalProof. They don't appear to have been vandalism, but they need clarification. Has anyone been following the introduction of 6000 series equipment to the Fukutoshin Line? If so, you might be able to help. Fg2 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to DAJF for help with this! Fg2 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a announcement of seibu railway and some trains were finisfed to remodeled. If you need that how remodeled, please look it. But it doesn't announcement that when started to come Tokyo Metro Line. So there are no introduction about 6000 seriese future.

In Japanese edition, writting guesses is prohibitioned strictly. I think English edtion also should follow Japanese edition rule and I think that more introduction of 6000 seriese should't written on page of Yurakucho Line.

Sorry, clumsy sentences.--Ichikawa Taichi 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ichikawa Taichi, We're glad you joined us. We'll be looking at the news from Seibu and the article in the Japanese Wikipedia. Thank you and welcome! Fg2 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just beginning to get involved in trains right now, and more often tend to work on a great variety of other subjects (samurai battles, kabuki, ukiyo-e...). You guys are doing an amazing job of covering all the modern, contemporary stations and lines. Out of curiosity, however, are any of you here interested in, or contributing to, articles on Meiji-period trains, railroads in the colonies, or other historical subjects? LordAmeth 12:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Josei Sen'yō Sharyō → Women-only car —(Discuss)

I've posted the above move request, and I was hoping to get some feedback. I think the current name is a definite no-no - article name should be in English, and "Josei Sen'yō Sharyō" isn't notable enough to be an exception. Now, I'm not entirely sure if the name I'm proposing is the best one - it's neither Japan- nor rail-specific. Any ideas? Thanks. --Ytny (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is the most direct, simple, and common way of referring to the thing, in English. Seeing as how it's a redlink, I'd say go for it, unless or until someone else has a specific idea of what other important concepts that could refer to, at which point we make a disambig page. LordAmeth 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "coach" instead of "car"? Since "car" often means "automobile" (in addition to what we mean here). "Coach" seems pretty immediately understandable. But "car" is ok too. Incidentally, the article has had some very strange names previously. Thanks for asking for advice so we can get it right! Fg2 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two stations named Nakatsu in Osaka, Osaka Prefecture, Japan. I hope this article will be splitted into two articles entitled Nakatsu Station (Hankyu) and Nakatsu Station (Osaka Municipal Subway) because two stations are not connected.Tigers boy 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the articles. I'll create a disambiguation page later. Ytny (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tōzai Line (JR West) → JR Tōzai Line

This one's a little complicated, since it goes against the current "JR by default" article naming convention, but the official name of the line should supersede the Wikipedia rule.

Please feel free to have your say at Talk:Tōzai Line (JR West) Ytny (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved as the move was not controversial. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that there does not seem to be a good overview of rail transportation (or transportation in general) for Ōsaka and Kansai. Osaka#Transport is very short, Kansai#Transport does not exist, and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto#Transportation is entirely in list form. This does not compare well with Transportation in Greater Tokyo, for example. I do not have too much to say about transportation in Kansai myself, but I hope someone could incorporate some of the maps that are available (such as Image:Wide-Area_Map_of_Osaka_City_Subway.png, Image:JR_West_Urban_Network.png, Image:Wide_Area_Map_of_Kintetsu.png, Image:Hankyu_map.svg) with some relevant text. I think that the maps, with other images like Image:WestJapanRailwayCompanyType223-1.JPG for context, could give a very good introduction to the subject without too much creativity needed in the text. I just uploaded Image:JR_West_Urban_Network.png (mentioned above), which I hope is useful for this...

Esetzer 12:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listed a batch of subway line categories for deletion (or merge) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Tokyosubway. The reason is that these categories only contain main subway line articles and station subcategories. We're not going to have any more articles about Ginza Line to place in Category:Tokyo Metro Ginza Line, and there already is a Category:Stations of Tokyo Metro Ginza Line, adding an extra step in navigation. Ytny (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The same situation exists for many (all?) of the private railways in the Tokyo area too (and maybe elsewhere). I can't see what purpose categories such as "Category: XYZ Line" serve if there are also categories such as "Lines of (XYZ rail company)" and "Stations of XYZ Line". DAJF 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Tokyo-area private railways to the proposal. I also noticed the same situation for Tokyo area JR East line categories - the most logical option seems to be to upmerge the "Stations of.." categories into the line categories. Ytny (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 2#Sub-Categorizing first. For the most part, I agree that the categories seem redundant; however, if a particular line has notable features (like a tunnel, an accident, etc), it should be categorized with the line. Categorizing an accident in the "Stations of ...." category seems wrong to me. Neier 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(and, an earlier discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 2#Category split proposal too. Neier 07:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the Stations of... categories should be merged up and stations should be listed in the line categories. In the vast majority of cases, individual lines have no significant subarticles to warrant having separate categories for the line and its stations (this seems to fall in line with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 2#Category split proposal). Ytny (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ytny on this one. Creating categories for each line is a waste of time for me. There's just too many categories cluttering the bottom of the article, it's very hard to read, and so we should reduce the categories...take a look at Shinjuku Station, for example. The navigational boxes at the bottom do a nicer job, so we don't really need those categories. Also, the train stations, accidents, tunnels, etc. can be categorized by prefecture and/or by railway companies instead.--Endroit 12:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ytny is not advocating getting rid of the line cats; just possibly removing Stations of from the names of the cats at the bottom of each station article. I agree that upmerging like that is useful. Also, train stations should be categorized by their owner/operator; but, without a line subcat, the number of stations in each JR category would start to get pretty big. I think that line cats ease that situation. Neier 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Just drop the Stations of from "Category:Stations of ABC Line", and merge up. That should ease the clutter a little.--Endroit 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't like the clutter, the categories don't really do any harm. And Neier makes a whole lot of sense here. As far as the CfD goes, we need to keep the categories if we are going to upmerge; so I voted Keep & Upmerge.--Endroit 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've changed my recommendation based on the discussion - keeping the line categories and upmerging the "stations of" categories seems to be the most sensible and would allow for stuff like accidents and notable structures. Ytny (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The CfD is now closed; and we need to do the Upmerge. Most stations appear to use Template:Ja-linecat for the Stations of _______ Line Category. Should we modify this template, or manually replace each category in each article?--Endroit 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like the easiest way to clear out most of them; but, I wonder if there's an easy way to check for any red-link categories that might result from that change. Neier 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something special about 3/18 ? Several train-related things happened today, spread around the country (station and renaming in Hyōgo; new line in Sendai; PASMO becomes operational in Tokyo). I couldn't think of a pronunciation which was meaningful (ala the popular marriage day "ii fūfu" on 11/22). Is JR just trying to compact all the ダイヤ confusion into one day? Neier 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a holdover from the JNR days when the ダイヤ改正 would take effect nationwide on the same day, usually in March, and sometimes in July or October. I guess it makes sense, since the JR companies have to coordinate their timetables with each other, not to mention the subways and private railways that connect to JR liens. There's an explanation of sorts in the Japanese Wikipedia: [3].

To answer your question, I don't think there's any significance to the day itself - it just happens to be a Sunday in March. Ytny (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at ja:3月18日#記念日・年中行事 but nothing jumped out at me. (Compare with ja:11月22日#記念日・年中行事 or ja:5月30日#記念日・年中行事.) Fg2 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! (and, an added bonus: now I know where the word ダイヤ came from). (^.^) Neier 07:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

changed things collected here. Next time (revise), Wikipedian will become busy on July 1 again. (series N700 related). --Aki 15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted one item in need of correction and one clarification needed for this page.

"Adjacent Stations" on subway #3 line: Kishinekoen station is incorrect; should be Mitsuzawa-shimocho.

References to the "Sagami line" should point out that on most maps and signage (including everywhere in Yokohama staion, as far as I've seen), this line is referred to as "Sotetsu line". In my opinion it might be more useful to refer to it generally as Sotetsu (having once pointed out the offical Sagami name). 124.144.252.123 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, you can be bold and fix any obvious errors that you find. I know I leave plenty of errors behind, so I always appreciate it when someone cleans up after me. Ytny (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed there's a lot of variety on how tables for platforms and adjacent stations are set up. I thought we might discuss how we might be able to standardize their appearance.

When it comes to platforms, the two best systems seem to be the Tokyo Station layout and the Kyoto Station style. The Tokyo layout seems to have a simpler syntax, and looks nice, but the Kyoto style seems to be more flexible, allowing multiple services to be represented within single platforms. I really don't have much of an opinion on this other than it would be nice to get them standardized.

As for adjacent stations, I'd assume we'd want to convert to a table the entries like Jūsō, but there's also how to go about that as well. Returning to the Tokyo station article, it's adjacent stations table only includes the next local stop on each line. Meanwhile, Odawara's list lines as well as Express, Semi-Express, etc. services, each with their own service color. Personally, I find that listing specific services each with their own color is a little confusing. I realize the formatting is different for the service rows on the table, but I'm still not sure I think it would be easier to read if all the services had the same color as the line. If we wanted to show the colors of the service, we might be able to insert a colored block in the line naming the service, like so:

That is, of course, if we decied that we should include information about local, express, etc. services at all and just go with the Tokyo Station approach. In any case, I'd like to see if anyone else has any opinions, and whether or not there is anything else that could use standardizing. ― El Cid ∴∵ 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the one on Hiroshima Station as it's easy to read and failry compact:

(Platform)

(Adjacent stations)

JR

█ Sanyō Shinkansen

Higashi-Hiroshima Station — Hiroshima Station — Shin-Iwakuni Station

█ Sanyō Main Line

City Liner Express

Seno Station — Hiroshima Station — Yokogawa Station

Commuter Liner Express

Hachihonmatsu Station — Hiroshima Station

Hiroshima Station — Yokogawa Station

Local

Tenjingawa Station — Hiroshima Station — Yokogawa Station

Note: The Hiroshima Freight Terminal Station is located between Tenjingawa and Hiroshima Stations.

█ Kure Line

Akiro Liner Express • Local

Tenjingawa Station — Hiroshima Station

Commuter Liner Express

Yano Station — Hiroshima Station

█ Kabe Line

Commuter Liner Express • Local

Hiroshima Station — Yokogawa Station

█ Geibi Line

Commuter Liner Express

Shimofukawa Station — Hiroshima Station

Miyoshi Liner Express • Local

Yaga Station — Hiroshima Station

Hiroden

█ Main Line

Line #1, #2, #5 and #6

Hiroshima Station — Enkobashi-cho

Any others around? We should post examples here so we can more easily compary them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the above layout - much easier to read and see the hierarchy. I find tables to be messy and I imagine it's pretty useless for someone who's not familiar with the station, which is exactly the audience the station articles are aimed at. I've done the same at Nara Station.

That said, I lately find myself agreeing with the spirit, if not the exact details, of User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable, and I wonder if listing adjacent stations for each service to be crossing the line over to directory listing, especially when you consider private railway companies that have rush hour or early morning/late night services that only run a few times a day. I'm going to start a discussion directly below this re: what's encyclopedic and what's timetable-ish, but I digress. Being the minimalist that I am, I sort of lean towards listing just the immediately adjacent stations for each line, and removing details about different services, which would simplify articles like Suma Station, where rapid trains stop or pass based on which track it's running on.

Then again, that brings up problems like the Keihin Tohoku Line or Shonan Shinjuku Line, which aren't actual lines. Ytny (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have read this section before posting my comment below. The problem I have with the platform information in these articles is that there is too much information which could change at the whim of JR. I realize that it was probably copied from the signage on the platforms (indirectly, via the ja: wikipedia). In my opinion, a better way would be to list only the physically adjacent station (and, MAYBE the terminus) at the platform. I think I am agreeing with Ytny; but, I'm not 100% sure. Between the formats at Hiroshima, Tokyo, and Kyoto, I think that the Tokyo style is slightly easier on the eyes. But, I think all three contain excess information. Neier 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose platforms are an easy, cheap way of filling up articles about stations. It does get a bit redundant and cluttered at times. I'm not aware of how often train companies shuffle them around to suit their needs, but if that's a concern, I certainly wouldn't argue. Still, it might be prudent to include the "types" of platforms that a station includes, ie. ground, subway, Shinkansen, private, etc. like so:

Ground platforms

1 - 5	■Walrus Line
	■Carpender Line
	■Clam Line
6 - 7	■Corp Corp. Cash Line
	■Corp Corp. Money Line

Shinkansen platforms

8 - 9

■Tweedle-Dee Shinkansen

Subway platforms

1 - 2

■Tweedle-Dum Line

It tries to avoid the kitchen sink mentality and information overload that might come with listing each platform and its many services separately, but to does give a sense of what kind of station it is and how many lines and companies it serves in a nice, visual manner. I suppose the same information might be presented in prose, but I think this is a intuitive way of presenting the information

I’d also like to make the case for the succession table used in the Tokyo article as opposed to the Hiroshima-style listing. I think succession boxes are a fairly well established method of conveying this kind of thing on Wikipedia, though the rail succession box looks a little different. Plus, when information of this manner is presented in a manner similar to prose, I sort of expect it to read as such. I think a table would be a more natural format to present an order of succession. If there are any concerns about the current template being confusing, I think we’d be able to tweak it so it includes any information that might be obscured by the current layout. ― El Cid ∴∵ 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I agree with Neier. This is how I basically stand on platform info:

• Platform information - I like. It gives readers an idea of the scale of the station.
• Platform information with line, terminus and direction info - I like. Osaka Station and Nara Station are currently undergoing renovations and info will change, but otherwise, it's generally stable.
• Platform information with line, terminus, direction and service info - I do not like. Like Neier says, this can change at the whim of JR, and that's assuming this doesn't change based on time of the day, or that each train has designated platforms.

I think one thing we should keep in mind is that English articles don't have to be facsimiles of Japanese articles. If anything, we are dealing with a different audience, and that there's more chance that too much information will confuse readers.

Oh, and I prefer the Hiroshima layout for the reasons mentioned already, but without the separate info for individual services. Whatever the layout, just include the immediately adjacent stations. Ytny (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I can throw another observation into the ring. Personally, I think the "adjacent stations" box, such as this one, from Shimbashi Station:

...are redundant, because we already have the collapsible (and much more aesthetically pleasing) "Stations of the xxxx Line" boxes at the bottom of most of the station articles, which show the same information. Any thoughts? --Nathan 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not redundant, though, as not every service stops at every station. Many express and limited express services skip multiple stations at a time, so it's very useful to have something showing what the next stop is for a particular service. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I wasn't thinking of that. I assumed that the box displays the next station on the line, regardless of whether the service stops there or not. --Nathan 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion, when I first started doing adjacent stations boxes the collapsable stations of the xxx was not being used much, Its just my personal opinion that if someone wanted to find out where a particular train service stopped on a line (for example where rapid trains stop on the Tokaido line vs local trains) they can research it more by looking up the particular lines page, rather than seeing it on the adjacent station box. I think the adjacent station box should list adjacent stations lol on a particular line, and not weather or not a certain service stops at that next station or not, shouldn't that information be in the page about the individual line instead? I also admit I am somewhat the cause of the formatting issues, back when I reformatted the Yokohama Station page, I borrowed the look and design from Japanese wikipedia @_@, after that it sorta took off and every page seemed to start borrowing the look of Japanese wikipedia when it came to listing platform signs. On the platform signage things, I agree, instead of listing stations, I think it should just list lines being used for those platformsLimitedexpresstrain 00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable above, the basic principles of which I wholeheartedly agree with. And I'm looking at railway line articles I've worked on and wondering if some of the information veers on the side of cruft or timetable info.

I'm thinking specifically of the station tables in articles like Sakurai Line#Stations. It's simple enough when all trains make local stops - just list the station name, Japanese name, official distance, connections if any, and the location. Nice and simple.

Or if you get to lines like JR Kobe Line#Stations, you have three train types, with rapid trains skipping some stops during rush hour. A little more complex, but not difficult to read.

But then you get something like Sanyo Railway Main Line#Stations, it's a different story. The line has two main train types, local and limited express, but it also three different service types coming from Hanshin, as well as two different types of off-peak limited expresses. As a result, you have a table that requires scrolling to read the far right column.

Now, I don't want to confuse an aesthetic issue with notability, but when information clutter makes reading difficult, then I think it's worth discussing whether the information really is notable enough. And in the case of station tables, stops for different services isn't notable, at least not notable enough for the level of clutter.

Thoughts? Ytny (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The main thrust of the essay (which tries to relocate station-specific info to towns or line articles) seems ill-founded, as I wrote on the talk page last year when it was first created. But, the one area that I agree with is wrt timetables contained within an article.

Listing the neighboring stations (physically) on a track is acceptable, because whenever that changes, there is likely to be one or more notable news articles about it (ie, a new station has opened, or an old station has closed). But, trying to keep individual services up to date is not easy. The only secondary reference we are likely to find with service information is the JTB monthly timetable. I have similar (but, not quite as strong) feelings regarding the platform information in many of the individual station articles. Neier 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how listing the different services makes the article a timetable since there are no times given. I'm definitely against listing all the times for each service, but listing which ones are there and on which platforms they can be found (this actually doesn't change all that often) shouldn't be a problem. I prefere the Hiroshima layout myself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When I say "timetable", I mean it in a very broad sense of the term, not timetable information per se. What I mean is that some railway information is encyclopedic, while some railway information is merely useful, not notable, and belongs in Wikitravel. For me, "timetable" is information that is merely useful. I think station layout is encyclopedic, as is what-line-stops-where. But I think which-trains-stop-where crosses the line over to timetable territory, because it's information doesn't add to our understanding of the station's importance or scale or whatever.

Now, my point was about the station tables in line articles, and the clutter created by the black circles and the triangles marking stops for different services. I think it adds unnecessary clutter to the article, and if it's important enough to stay in the article, it works much better as prose than in the table form. Ytny (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the station tables are an essential part of the line articles. When someone goes to the line article, they want to know which stations it services (at least that's why I would go to a line article). The stations a line services is what makes up the line (the essence of the line, so to speak), so the line information is very important, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I like the station tables, a lot in fact. It gives the relative and geographical location of the stations, and the connecting lines. It's just the service info that I find to be not encyclopedic, or at least clutters up the tables too much. The table in Sanyo Railway Main Line#Stations requires scrolling to get from side to side, and off-peak services are given the same weight as regular services. In the hierarchy of importance, I think the service pattern comes last, and in my opinion, shouldn't make the other, more important information hard to read. Ytny (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to scroll to view it. What is your screen resolution? As an alternative for really large ones (there really won't be too many of them--Sanyo is one of the largest and longest lines in Japan), perhaps we could use that "show/hide" feature used with the train line templates, with some sort of disclaimer that the chart may be really large. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm using 1024 x 768, which I believe is pretty common, esepcially for smaller laptops. Part of the problem is that most proper names in Japanese are two characters long, four for especially long ones, so tables like these don't take up that much horizontal space. An I don't think the show-hide isn't a solution since the table itself isn't the problem, but less important information obscuring more important information within the table is. I don't know, maybe just limiting the service info to regular daytime services? For Sanyo Railway Main Line it would be just the local and Osaka-Himeji Limited Express, which would be quite manageable. Ytny (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I have at home, but I don't have to scroll. I reduced the font size in the table a bit, so that may be what it is. Regardless, I think it's an important and encyclopedic part of the articles as it provides information which makes up the essence (to use the word I used before) of the line. Without all of those services using the line, the line wouldn't exist. Therefore, I believe they are an extremely important part of the article. As I indicated above, only a small number of lines will have this much information as only a small number (about 10-20 at the most) have this many services using them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course if it's a big enough problem we could split the services tables from articles. That way, the main article doesn't have scroll bars, and only the people who want the information have them. The information remains accessible on Wikipedia. Fg2 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a difference between knowing how to get from point A to point B, and, the (potentially) fastest way to do so. But, splitting the information out might be tantamount to deleting the data, because I don't think the service info in a standalone article would survive the AFD which would eventually follow. As a named service, articles would stand more than a fighting chance; but, AFAIK, most of these are just "XYZ Line Express" (if English names even officially exist). Neier 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will sound naive to people who are more railfanny than me, but it seems that there are two senses of the word platform that are being used. One is the real physical platform where people stand, and the other is the "platform" that the trains come to, which I think is actually the track. And two or more "platforms", or tracks, can service a single actual platform. I think the distinction in Japanese is プラットホーム (purattohoomu) vs. のりば (noriba), real-platform vs. track-platform respectively. Now, I know that in Japanese のりば also means a bus "platform". So it's more like "stop" or "getting on place" in English. In any case, it seems potentially confusing to refer to のりば as platforms in station articles because most station articles also talk about the number of physical platforms, which is sometimes a different number! Help? BilabialBoxing 07:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I use the same distinction you do, and to me, and I always use "platform" to mean the physical structure. At least I think I do. In a Japanese article, it would usually say X面Y線, which simply translates to X platforms and Y tracks.

I'm not sure I completely understand your concern - can you point out an article where this might be a problem? --Ytny (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Station, as an example, has multiple numbered boarding places on some platforms. "30～33番・0番のりばを一つのホームとして見たときの長さが700メートルを越え日本最大の長さである。" (Japanese Wikipedia) A fair number of stations have a Noriba 0, which is just one end of a platform that has a different number at the other end. Fg2 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hizen-Yamaguchi Station illustrates my point, I think. It has three platforms, and five tracks. These five tracks translate into five Noriba, but aren't the same thing exactly. Some people would perhaps use "Platform" as a heading to the table labeled "Tracks". Obviously we don't want to use the term Noriba to describe these "boarding places". Shibuya Station seems to use "ways" ("1-island platform with 2-ways") as way to distinguish between platforms, tracks, and boarding places. I guess I'm just asking if there is an easy, railfan approved way of describing Noriba. BilabialBoxing 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen "noriba" translated as "platform", and this is how I've always translated it. I always consider the physical structure to be the platform, but each of those physical structures can (and usually does) have more than one platform, especially in larger stations. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, noriba is written using two kanji, the first meaning "ride" or "board" and the second meaning "place" so it quite literally means "boarding place." Even so, we might not want to translate it that way (and I agree that it doesn't sound right). I think "platform" is fine, even though it probably refers to the structure, which might be shared by two boarding places on the same track. I think JR's English signs use "track" despite its having another meaning. But I haven't specifically looked at JR's English signs for places where multiple noriba share a platform on the same track. If there's a way to check JR, that's a good starting point. Also, you can look at articles on railways in English-speaking countries -- you might find some ideas there too. Fg2 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy for me. Japanese Wikipedia using:

"プラットホーム (platform)" shades of means "a structure". "10番線 (bansen)" means "a railway (track)". (番=th, 線=line or track) and "10番のりば/10番乗り場" shades of means "zone for take a train on the platform". (乗=ride, 場=point or zone or place) But "ホーム" isn't easy. It could guess the meaning of a word from the context. (an abbreviation of Platform, or zone for take a train on the platform)

forexample:

The "プラットホーム" that located northernmost of Kyoto Station have six "乗り場"s. (0th, 30th, 31th, 32th, 33th, 34th, 35th) → a map of Kyoto Station

Aki 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm adding to this rather late, but I thought I would contribute something. I think for the purposes of this discussion, there is no need to analyze Japanese terms at all. This is completely a semantic exercise in English. The Japanese people clearly understand the concept of what the のりば is and what the ホーム is. Everything else is left up to translation. Creating the standard here on what English word you want to give each respective Japanese word has really nothing to do with Japanese. It comes down to what do you call those items in English. I would say that there is no set standard in English. The point is, however, does the reader of the article understand the difference. And, if they don't, has that person really missed anything? Think about it this way, if the person reading the article is a railfan, then that person should understand the jargon. If the reader is simply looking for a bit of info on the station, then the terminology may not be so important. Theoretically, once the reader is standing in the station, they can find their own way to where they need to wait for the train. But, if you have to decide which is which, then take a page from the Japanese concept, and listen to what they say. A typical announcement that would be heard on a 新快速 stopping at 芦屋駅, would be, 「まもなく、芦屋、芦屋です。お出口は、右側、１番のりばに到着いたします。西ノ宮、甲子園口、立花のお客様、普通電車の松井山手行きは着きましたホーム、向かい側、２番のりばから発車いたします。」 Hosikawafuzi 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Should geodata (i.e. coordinates) be added to stations so that they show up on the Wikipedia layer of Google Earth? I think that I would support that, but I wonder if we shouldn't clutter Google Earth? BilabialBoxing 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding geodata for station articles I've edited. I don't know, it seems appropriate considering stations tend to be key landmarks in Japanese communities, but I don't use Google Earth so I'm not sure how bad the potential clutter would be. Ytny (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on the issues of clutter in Google Earth either, but I don't see that that should be a criterion for deciding whether or not such data should be included on Wikipedia articles. One thing I have been doing occasionally is moving the coordinates from within the text of articles to the very top by inserting the "title" tag. I suggest this style be used for all stations. --DAJF 05:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Awhile back, I added the coords to all the local (Sendai) stations, so, obviously I think it's a good idea. Neier 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a creator of {{ja-rail-line}} (and {{ja-rail-linem}}, which is (probably) a useful template for putting station platform information on articles. Here's some notification about that. I wrote it here because talk page of this template will not be seen so oftenly. If you feel it's inappropriate for here, feel free to remove it.

First, if you find this template (not {{ja-rail-linem}}) lacking pfn parameter, please add it like below:

{{ja-rail-line|1|name=Line name|col=Line color|dir=Direction}}

to

{{ja-rail-line|pfn=1|name=Line name|col=Line color|dir=Direction}}

I appreciate it if you not only correct the template, but also notifying this to the user who first used it.

Secondly, do not use {{Ja-Stalayout}} by yourself, it is included in {{ja-rail-line}}. I think few people can understand what I said. first parameter can replace {{Ja-Stalayout}}.

{{ja-Stalayout}}
{{ja-rail-line|pfn=1|name=Line name|col=Line color|dir=Direction}}

to

{{ja-rail-line|first=2|pfn=1|name=Line name|col=Line color|dir=Direction}}

or

{{ja-rail-line|first=4|pfn=1|name=Line name|col=Line color|dir=Direction}}
for single platform.

Thirdly, there are some parameters that can be abbriviated, but only for {{ja-rail-line}}, not for {{ja-rail-linem}}. They are nolinkindex (to nidx), lineindex (to idx) and linename (to name).

For more detailed information, see the template page. --Izumi5 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Commons user 天然ガス has uploaded several Japanese train photos, mostly taken in the Kansai, but a few in Hokkaido, in case anyone is looking for photos to use in articles. Ytny (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too, although they're harder to locate in my contributions. Most are in the usual categories and galleries. Fg2 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Keisei Ueno Station needs a photo, preferably in the Commons, either from the street showing the entrance or maybe an interior shot downstairs or the platforms. Oddly there is nothing in the commons or the Japanese wikipedia for this station. 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded two (exterior/interior) images to Commons, and included them in the Keisei Ueno Station article. DAJF 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went to Japan. So, if you want the JR Pass picture that allows ulimited access to JR Trains, Shinkansen (some), JR Buses, & JR Ferries, go here.

• http://marasama.googlepages.com/JRPass-cover.gif
• http://marasama.googlepages.com/JRPass-inside.gif
• Link on the JR pass, http://www.kintetsu.com/jrpass/

Thanks, CarpD 5/27/07.

Hi guys. I found out there's barely any articles about Kintetsu. I have been working on some, and I am looking for someone to help. Kintetsu is the largest private railroad (excluding JR), and we better get to work.

Hirohisat 06:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)