Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 4

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.

Work seems to be proceeding to move "XYZ Line" articles from the "Lines of East Japan Railway Company" category to their individual "XYZ Line" categories, particularly for JR lines in the Tokyo area. Does anyone find this change beneficial? I myself find it genuinely inconveniencing. Clicking on the "Lines of East Japan Railway Company" category at the bottom of these articles previously enabled readers to navigate quickly to other lines, but this is now no longer possible. Clicking on the "XYZ Line" category generally just takes the reader to a list of articles for stations on the line, but these will usually already be linked from within the line article anyway. Maybe I have missed something, but these changes appear to be a major retrograde step to me. DAJF 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the XYZ Line categories are listed as subcats of "Lines of East Japan Railway Company", I don't see this as a problem. It's just adding a few more "drawers" which help keep things much more organized. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking for pictures to put on Kintetsu Railway station articles, preferably the front entrance, although I'm going to Japan this Winter. Happy Editing! ---Hirohisat 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen commons:Category:Station of Kintetsu? Photos uploaded to Commons can be included in Wikipedia in any language as well as other Wikimedia projects, so provided the license is compatible, I encourage people to uploade to Commons. Fg2 10:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fg2, I'll have fun looking through it! Hirohisat 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding infoboxes to a few articles about japanese trainstations. One question that I have is that in some cases it adds information already clearly stated in the article. For example Shinagawa Station. There you'll see information about it lines both the first thing in the article and in the infobox. Is this really nesscary? Is is a problem? And should we try and do something about it? --Jonte-- 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My own rule of thumb is to list statistics in one location so those that want them can get to them quickly. Sections that just list information that is in the infobox can be safely removed after the information is added to the infobox. I try to avoid repeating the data in the text unless it is necessary for the story. The same holds true for me when I add a route box to an article. Once I've added the box, I remove the list from the article text and integrate the rest of the section's text into other sections. Slambo (Speak) 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go by that in thoose cases it dosen't leave the article complete blank. --Jonte-- 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at these infoboxes, and I'm not really sure they are the best way to go. The information is presented in a fairly clumsy way. For instance, in the Nippori Station, there is a section for history. I think that's completely unneeded. And besides, there is a heading in that box about "Year Closed". That doesn't need to be there. I think, perhaps, the infobox is good for stating basic information such as the name and location. However, as far as history of the station goes, or for the lines a station services (if there is more than one), that information should be kept in the main part of the article because it can be given a more thorough treatment. Thanks. Hosikawafuzi 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Hosikawafuzi. As Jonte said earlier, we wouldn't want an article completely blank with just the infoboxes on. It won't really work with stub articles anyways. --Hirohisat ^Talk 05:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added this WikiProject's banner to Kyoto Station. --70.142.51.165 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fg2 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been taking a look at the Newest pages section on the Project page, but do we need to archive it? H irohisat^{Talk Page} 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I take it back H irohisat^{Talk Page} 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems to be the convention to have a seperate article on stations that have the same name but operated by different companies, I would really like to split Sannomiya Station up so that at least there are two articles, the other being named Sannomiya Station (JR). Ideally, there would be four/five seperate articles for each station, and Sannomiya Station would become a disambiguation page. Does anyone see a problem with this? Thanks. Hosikawafuzi 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see any problem. The Japanese Wikipedia is like that, so let's make it the same too. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough material to make 4-5 different articles? If there isn't, I'd keep it all in one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think once I get done with them, there will be enough content to at least split the JR station off from the rest. I've already started with that. I will at the very least expand these articles as best as I can. I hope to make them easier to read and provide more information. Thanks. Hosikawafuzi 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I updated the {{Kōbe Line}} template to point to the new article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that. Hosikawafuzi 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this beeing done? Does it mean we should slit more stations like this? For example splitting the Shinjuku station into seperarate articles for the JR and non-JR sections? I just think it's confusing. --Jonte-- 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if there is enough material for a spereate article, then yes, I think there should be a seperate article for each company that operates a station with the name of Shinjuku. The thing I really see a need for is seperating JR from the rest. My reasoning is that JR is everywhere in the country and I think that's worth having seperate articles for them. I would also go as far to say JR history is the longest, but I could be wrong. In the Japanese Wiki, all companies that operate a Shinjuku Station [[1]], except for Seibu [[2]], are in the same article. However, if you look at Nishinomiya Station [[3]], it's split between JR and Hanshin, which is what I did when I created the JR article here. Hosikawafuzi 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But the article is about the station itself, not about the companies that operate it. If the station is physically located at the same place, or connected, then it should be one article. I do not see why my local train station should have two articles just because there are two companies operating at it. --Jonte-- 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you are going to seperate a station from the company that operates it. They go hand in hand. This is another confusion in terms. You have several different seperate individual stations all bearing the name Sannomiya Station (三ノ宮駅, 三宮駅). They may be very near each other, but they are seperate. I think that each individual station, operated by each individual company deserves an article if there is enough material to create it. The stations are different and each one has a different history, even if the name happens to be the same, or nearly the same. If your only interest in this is that Sannomiya Station is "[your] local station," then you shouldn't worry about that unless your older than 28 years. Hosikawafuzi 02:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand the last sentences. My point is that for example Shinjuku station is one station, however with several companies operating in it, like most train stations i the world. It would only make things confusing if we made several diffrent articles. --Jonte-- 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's where you're mistaken. They aren't just one station. There are many separate individual stations that are different from each other. They weren't all built at the same time. They weren't all built by the same company. They don't all service the same lines. They are different and separate. They are not one station. You are confused by the naming thing. Yes, certain stations just happen to be in same geographical location and are probably very near each other and just happen to have the same name. In the end, though, they are separate. I happen to dislike very much the Shinjuku article on the Japanese Wiki. I think it's confusing in some places, and I don't think it's helpful except for rainfans. So, lets concentrate on your dispute, Sannomiya Station. JR was there first, then Hankyu and Hanshin came along. Hankyu built their station adjacent to JR, but Hanshin is across the street and underground. Each station is physically near the others, however, they are different. I think that each company with it's own lines and own stations, each one deserves an article, provided that there is enough information to create it. I think there is at least enough information about JR Sannomiya to split it from the others. I think it's easier for non-railfans read and understand because they are separate and less confusing. Hosikawafuzi 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, then it sounds resonable as long as official maps don't mark it as one station. But with for example Shinjuku station, there is one station building while diffrent companies use some of the tracks and parts of the station, therefore it should be one article. --Jonte-- 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put in requests to have these two articles moved to Nishi-Nippori Station and Nishi-Arai Station respectively to bring them in line with the general naming format of station names with prefixes. The new names are currently occupied by redirect pages. Anyone with views for or against the requested moves should add comments to Talk:Nishi Nippori Station#Requested move and Talk:Nishiarai Station#Requested move. DAJF 08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion on the respective pages, Nishi Nippori Station was moved to Nishi-Nippori Station, but Nishiarai Station was kept as it is. DAJF 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited two recently-created EMU articles (Seibu 6000 series and Tōbu 50000 series) switching to the universal "EMU infobox" rather than the "Japanese EMU infobox" currently used on a large number of EMU (and Shinkansen) articles. If there are no objections, I plan to systematically edit all the existing Japanese EMU and Shinkansen articles using this EMU infobox. It contains a lot more immediately useful information than the Japanese EMU infobox, which bizarrely concentrates on relatively obscure details like starting acceleration and braking speeds. DAJF 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if an article has enough material to write about, use the EMU infobox, which contain a lot of information. The Japanese EMU infobox tends to have less information, so if an article is a stub, we could use the Japanese one. --Hirohisat ^Talk 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Meitetsu Nagoya Line in Japanese will be 名鉄名古屋線...however it is actually Meitetsu Nagoya Main Line 名鉄名古屋本線. There already is a redirect for that, but I suggest we rename the article to the latter since I guess it's more official. Thoughts? --Hirohisat ^Talk 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, since a large number of pages already link directly to the Meitetsu Nagoya Main Line redirect. You can move the page over the redirect, since the redirect page has not been edited. I say be bold and go for it! DAJF 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done, page moved to Meitetsu Nagoya Main Line. --Hirohisat ^Talk 04:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A change was made to West Japan Railway Company that now refers to the names of the Biwako, Kyōto and Kōbe Lines as "nick names". While certainly these are subdivisions of the main Tōkaidō Line, I completely disagree that they are nick names. Those names are formal names applied to their respective parts of the Tōkaidō Line. If there are no objections, I'll clean up that section and include an explanation, rather than just calling them nick names. Thanks Hosikawafuzi 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any actual expertise on this kind of subject, but I definitely get the impression that these names are more official than mere nicknames. LordAmeth 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Take what I say about this with a grain of salt! Apparently, lines have official names, as filed with the government. The railroad can use those official names on signage, or they can use other names, and I've seen signs with names like Biwako Line. The idea is that signs are for the convenience of passengers whereas official names are necessary for government bureaucrats. The word "nickname" might indicate a status that's too informal for these lines, so an explanation, as Hosikawafuzi suggests, might be better than the word "nickname." However you solve this, consider similar edits to Akabane Line. (It doesn't use "nickname.") Fg2 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The JR Timetable refers to these line names as "愛称", but I agree with the comments above that the English term "nickname" suggests that these are informal names, whereas they are used on official publicity and signage. DAJF 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "alternative name"? --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Or "section name" or "segment name" (since they are more names of each section/segment than alternate names for the line itself). Since all of those are names of segments of a line, this seems like a good way to go. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Right, Nihonjoe's got the point. Segment name is more proper I think. --Hirohisat ^Talk 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I put "nickname" in Gakkentoshi Line. The suggestions people have made here would work there too. Fg2 06:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a few station articles that have links added to Ekikara, Jorudan, and the like, for current timetable or connection info. Part of me thinks that this is dangerously close to WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#TRAVEL, but, another part of me thinks that if we are going to have links like that, then, maybe we should standardize them (like ISBN links for books, or geo-coords), and just maintain a template with a single type of page linked from each station article. Doing that would probably involve some access to the toolserver, but, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable. What do others think? Should we just trash the links that only go to timetable info? Or, just ignore them? Or, try to standardize them? Neier 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia, itself, is not that, however that's the reason that I made links to sites that are those things. Any information of that type that is put into a Wiki is subject to going out of date, however, Ekikara is a widely used resource and is maintained very well. I think providing a link to it is a helpful resource. Hosikawafuzi 21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hosikawafuzi. Those can be a great help for somebody looking up those things. --Hirohisat ^Talk 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, should we link to Jorudan, the English subset of Jorudan, Ekikara, Excite, Yahoo, or all of the above (plus some that I'm sure I've left off)? If you link to an ISBN, you aren't automatically redirected to Amazon's page; if you enter a geo-coordinate, you aren't sent to GoogleMaps. So, I guess I'm asking if there is a way to do the same thing with stations. If we decide that only one (or two) sources are worth it, then something like the {{imdb}} templates would work out well; and, also let us keep track of what articles link to the off-site, in the event that the company changes their website organization, and which would need to be updated here each time. Neier 04:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I say that we can use them just as a link, rather than templates because they actually aren't part of the encyclopedia. --Hirohisat ^Talk 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The current naming of Japanese loco articles, like "XX class electric locomotive", seems confusing to some readers not familiar with Japan railway. My suggestion is to change the naming system to "XX Class YY", where "XX" stands for operator (e.g. JNR, JR West, etc.), and "YY" stands for model (e.g. EF66). --Wrightbus 10:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How about just the model? --Hirohisat ^Talk 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, this should have been discussed before all the locomotive articles were renamed.

As the person that established the original naming format, I am probably somewhat biased, and I am still not entirely convinced of the need to incorporate "JNR" or "JR Freight" in the article names. I know this is the format used for Japanese Wiki articles, but I think it is unnecessarily unwieldy, and somwhat misleading since JNR no longer exists and JNR is not the operator of many of these loco types (e.g. EF65, EF81 etc).

Either way, the preferred format needs to be ammended to reflect these changes in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Style. --DAJF 23:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while about the listing of railways and station in geografical articles, for example a ward. They tend to be quite ugly and cluttered. Is there any list we could use to make it a bit more easiser to naivgate? Take a look at for example Kōtō, Tokyo#Transportation --Jonte-- 13:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this before at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/July_2006#Transport_in_cities.2Ftowns; and the format like Sendai#Transportation is what came out of it. That's not much different than Kōtō right now (except, all the stations are linked in the example). Neier 13:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A request has been made to move Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway to Tokyu Corporation. Editors wishing to add their comments for or against the proposal can do so at Talk:Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway#Requested move. DAJF 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Suitengumae Station article exists in its talk page. How can we deal with it? --Sushiya 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, just renaming the talk page using the move tab was possible. Fg2 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sushiya 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Minato Mirai Line" is wrong. "Minatomirai Line" is correct. Someone please change this because I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.102.40.224 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 16:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Which one should be prefered...

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=Stub|importance=Low|Japan=yes|Stations=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=Stub|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
}}

or

{{Trains in Japan}}

when tagging articles? --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If a trains in Japan article is marked with a WPJ tag, simply replace it with the TIJ tag. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So leave TWP and replace WPJ with TIJ, am I right? --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 05:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the TWP banner, you'd have to ask them. But yes on the other one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)