Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides

Australian metro systems

I am not exactly sure what the differences between metro systems, commuter rail, light rail etc. are, but i think the rail networks in Australian cities should be included in the list. I found them on the page commuter rail in Australia. Feel free to remove them if they are not appropriate for this list. Nuiop728 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Australian cities from the list. Feel free to read rapid transit for some more info, but basically a metro is a very frequent rail service that operates independently of other forms of transport (car, etc), usually by being underground or elevated. As I understand, all Australian cities have level crossings. Also, metros usually do not operate on a specific timetable but rather a frequency, such as trains every 10 minutes. This is also not the case in Australia. It is a real shame that Australia is so far behind dozens of other countries throughout the world. JamesA ^>talk 03:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to exclude a city like Melbourne, with ~220 million annual users, few remaining level crossings and trains that are usually less than 15 minutes apart. The primary difference is not the type of rail system, but geography. Most Australian cities are quite sprawling and were planned with separate avenues for trains, even if lines weren't installed, so there wasn't a need to have raised or subterranean tracks. --Senor Freebie (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide, but Sydney and Melbourne definitely have grade separation (although I havent seen every crossing, maybe there are some level crossings?). Most of the railways in the centre of Sydney and Melbourne are underground. As for the timetable thing - is there really a difference between having a timetable and having a frequency? I think the reason is that in some of the bigger systems the trains come so frequently that there is no need for timetable (i.e. if the train comes every 5 mins, there simply is not much use for a timetable, the train could be 2 minutes late) In Sydney and Melbourne the train frequencies are more like 20 minutes, so there is use for a timetable. The only difference that I could really think of (between Australia and London, Paris or Tokyo) is that these large systems have a dedicated number of separate lines, if you catch a train it will always travel up and down that line, whereas in Sydney/Melbourne there are no dedicated lines, the network is all essentially joined. In Melbourne, for example (there is a map on the page Metro Trains Melbourne) two trains could be headed from city loop towards Clifton Hill, but then split, one going towards Epping, and another heading for Hurtsbridge. In a system with dedicated lines, the stop at Clifton Hill would have four separate platforms, two for the 'Hurtsbridge line', and two for the 'Epping line' (two because one heading one direction, another heading in the opposite direction). Do you understand what I mean? This is the only reason I could think of to not to include Sydney/Melbourne. But think of the smaller systems listed - do they really have dedicated lines and grade separation? Ive never seen them, but it seems highly unlikely given how small they are, and how small the cities are. This is why I think the list should include Sydney/Melbourne - I am sure that they would fit the definition of a Metro system better than half the other systems on this list, the official name of the Melbourne system is even 'Metro Trains Melbourne'. Nuiop727 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please discuss Australian systems on List of metro systems talk (and search first that talk and its archive, there are several threads about Australia), not here, as inclusion to that list is based on list of metro systems inclusion. --Jklamo (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton LRT

LincolnHo has been very persistent in adding the Edmonton LRT to the list. The Edmonton LRT is not a metro system, it has lots of grade crossings and runs down medians of arterial roads. Therefore it shall be removed, if anyone has any issues with this and would like it to be added back please write it here. Terramorphous (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

SF Muni Metro missing??

From the San Francisco Muni Metro Wikipedia page:

"Muni Metro is a light rail system serving San Francisco, California, operated by the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), a division of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Serving 156,900 passengers a day, Muni Metro is the second busiest light rail system in the United States.[1]"

If Muni Metro is second busiest light rail system in US, why does it not appear on this list of Metro systems by annual ridership? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.225.82 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FTR, Muni Metro is considered a Light rail system - it is, instead, included in all of the Light rail, and Light rail ridership, lists... --IJBall (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-formatting the list

I am proposing a re-formatting of the list material into a table. The current form is long and not very attractive. I'm thinking about changing it to something similar to:

Rank System Annual Passenger Rides Figures as of 1 Tokyo Subway (Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway only) 3.174 billion 2008 2 Moscow Metro 2.392 billion 2009 3 Seoul Subway (Seoul Metro and SMRT) 2.047 billion 2008 4 New York City Subway 1.624 billion 2008 5 Mexico City Metro 1.467 billion 2008 6 Beijing Subway 1.457 billion 2009 7 Paris Métro 1.388 billion 2007 8 Hong Kong MTR 1.323 billion 2009

(I know some of the numbers aren't updated; this is just a version I was working on a few weeks back.)

Thoughts? Suggestions? -Multivariable (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [Moved by IJBall (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)]

For the record, I would Strongly Support this change/reformat - the table would look much better if done as proposed above... --IJBall (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: the Ridership numbers should be standardized in such a way that the sort works correctly. On initial page load the sort is by Ridership descending, but manually selecting a sort and then returning to descending/Ridership results in incorrect behavior where '99' is interpreted as greater than '10 million.'199.172.169.97 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I support that. In particular a ranking that doesn't have an easy way of accessing the actual rank doesn't make much sense (to me anyway). OdinFK (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This List Needs Some Common Reference Points for Ridership Stats

I realize that, for an international list liked this, one universal "ridership reference" is impossible.

But I propose for the American and Canadian systems, at least, that the Annual Ridership figures should all come from the American Public Transit Association's (APTA) Ridership Reports statistics (whenever possible, and I think it's possible for 95% of them...), rather than from each individual system's transit agency's ridership figures - using APTA universally at least allows for better "apples to apples" comparisons of Ridership stats from the U.S. and Canada. Similarly, Annual Ridership statistics for Mexico should probably all come from the Banco de Información Económica - Instituto Nacional de Estadísitica y Geografía's (INEGI) reports.

I don't know if there are similar agencies collecting international data for Europe and/or Asia, but if they exist they should be used as much as possible for Ridership stats, over the Ridership figures from each transit agency, as well.

If I get a chance, I may go through this table, and make certain that the Ridership statistics for the U.S., Canada and Mexico are all from the above sources (as they are for most other Ridership tables on Wikipedia...). --IJBall (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that while it may be an "apples to apples" comparison for American/Canadian systems if APTA numbers are used, it would not be comparable to other systems around the world (which is what this list is about). APTA counts all trips as unlinked trips (transfers are counted as multiple trips), inflating American/Canadian numbers when compared to systems that used linked trips. As long as the sources are giving total ridership for a year, I don't see why the systems wouldn't be comparable. Are there similar discrepancies between individual system's ridership data and INEGI ridership data?

On a side note, I don't understand why APTA reports unlinked trips as multiple trips. It doesn't give an accurate view of ridership and actually takes more work to calculate. The list should focus on linked trips when possible, with notes whenever unlinked trips are used (like it is now). -Multivariable (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's two counter-points to that, I guess.

The first is that, if you're pulling the numbers from each individual agency, we don't know how they're counting them - some of them will be giving out the "linked trips" figure, while others may very well be giving out the "unlinked trips" figure, and often they probably won't even be telling you which figure it is they're giving you.

The second, and to me potentially bigger, issue is that if you pull the figures from the transit agencies, a lot of the time you're going to be getting "dated" figures (some will be current, but plenty of them will quote Ridership numbers from several years back) - if given the choice, I'd rather have a table where every stat is coming from calendar year 2012 (and the same source), rather than a table with a hodgepodge figures - some from 2012, some from 2011, and a few from 2010 (or even earlier). I personally think one of the most crucial necessities in a list such as this one is that data be as consistent in terms of being from the same calendar year as much as possible. (Comparing figures from 2012 for one system vs. figures from 2008 for another system is almost pointless...)

The other issue here is, just glancing at it, roughly half of the American ridership figures, and all of the Canadian figures, are already coming from APTA in this table. To me it makes no sense to not have all of the American figures just come from APTA too, so at least all of those systems are "apples to apples" comparisons.

(FTR, I realize APTA figures are going to "inflate" North American Ridership figures somewhat, but I suspect the damages isn't as bad as one might expect. In fact, I think I'll take a look at that issue on my own, and see how bad the discrepancy is between APTA figures and "linked trip" figures from some of the agencies...) And I have no idea why APTA does "unlinked trips" except that I suspect that it's easier for them to count it that way.

As for INEGI, I actually don't know the answer to whether their figures are "linked trips" or "unlinked trips" (I suspect it's the former, but I don't know for sure...). As it is, that should only affect one figure in the table - the Monterrey and Guadalajara systems are actually light rail systems, and should be deleted from this table anyway...

Of course, the far bigger issue with this table is still needing "universal sourcing" for the Asian and European systems, at least. And I don't know if there are Asian or European equivalents to APTA out there somewhere... --IJBall (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In thinking it over, I think I'm going to leave the Mexico City figure as is, rather than use INEGI's - the Mexico City Metro agency is quoting 1.609 billion; the INEGI figure (which is an approximation, because of the way you have to calculate Annual Ridership from their figures) is 1.604 billion. That's close enough that there's no point in switching in the (probably less accurate) INEGI number... --IJBall (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see comparing different years as a major issue, especially since the list is (for the most part) already up-to-date. Ridership for systems doesn't change much year-to-year (except for rapidly expanding ones, e.g. like those in China), so it's not entirely pointless to compare, say, 2008 to 2012 data when you know the ridership numbers are (for the most part) accurate. As important as it is to have up-to-date figures, it's more important to use comparable figures when possible, especially for an article like this. Most systems don't release numbers as unlinked trips, and when they do, it's fairly obvious (due to discrepancies with third party compiled sources, which always used linked trips).

As a comparison, the NY Subway lists its annual ridership for 2012 at 1.654 billion, while APTA lists it as 2.544 billion. It makes little sense to change to figures that you know are substantially inflated rather than use ones that we know are comparable to other global systems, for a real "apples to apples" comparison. -Multivariable (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As APTA is listing "unlinked trips" only, it is not possible to use it as primary source to keep comparability of the list. --Jklamo (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I'm still investigating this, and I'll will require more time, but so far the really big discrepancies between the APTA figures and the agency's figures are New York Subway and Washington Metro (S.F. BART is a borderline case). So far, the other American figures I've looked at from the agencies either seem to be directly from APTA, or are quoting "unlinked trip" statistics themselves. Anyway, I'll research this further when I have some free time... --IJBall (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing systems

I did again sync with List of metro systems, some systems were removed and these are missing:

• Algiers Metro
• Brescia Metro (opened March 2013)
• FMetro
• Hangzhou Metro (opened November 2012)
• Kobe Rapid Railway
• Kunming Rail Transit (opened June 2012)
• Minatomirai Line
• Shenyang Metro
• Airport Rail Link (Bangkok)
• Suzhou Rail Transit (opened April 2012)
• Yamanote Line

--Jklamo (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up! Is there a reason Seoul Metropolitan Subway isn't split up like other city's systems (Tokyo, Berlin, Guangzhou/Foshan, Bangkok, etc.), both in this list and in List of metro systems? I'm counting 4 different operators between Lines 1-9. Also, it looks like Seoul's number is based on unlinked trips (the source just sums up Lines 1-9 to get a "total"); I'll make that note in the article. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There is endeless disucussion about Soul in List of metro systems talk, so feel free to join it there. About consideration as system, it is not question of multiple operators (for example Shanghai Metro is operated by four companies), but how far are the lines operated by different companies integrated (single marketing, easy transfers, single fare system) and if they are not fundamentally technically different. Seoul is obviously border case. Anyway definition of being system is now missing on List of metro systems, so it is good idea to raise it there.

There is also interesting side effect related to our list (and question of linked-unliked stats), if there is available one (unlinked) ridership value for whole system, we do not have to doubt, if it is single system. If is not available, we can doubt. --Jklamo (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cologne is missing, too. According to the article it has an annual ridership of 208.9 millions, and should clearly be part of the table. OdinFK (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Apparently Cologne doesn't fall under the metro definiton. Sorry for the mis-posting. OdinFK (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

HKG flag change

HKG flag should be used to represent Hong Kong Another Wiki page List_of_countries_by_population uses Hong Kong(China) to describe Hong Kong, though HKG flag is still used. Hong Kong is politically separated from China even they are under the same country. GB Lothian (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The above statement is nonsensical - if they're the same country, they're the same country, as they are as is clear from the "One country, two systems" policy. People advocating this change are engaging in "issue advocacy" (see: Wikipedia:Advocacy). Further, there is no consensus for this change (see: Wikipedia:Consensus), as is shown by multiple editors to this page reverting this change previously. This is a general international listing. Wikipedia is supposed to take a neutral point of view on issues such as this. As Jklamo has said repeatedly before, the PRC-HKG issue is far beyond the scope of this article. Further, outside of yourself, there appear to be shenanigans going on here, as most of the most recent reversions on this issue have come from first-time Wikipedia posters who have no other revision records in their histories. --IJBall (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you those are not other a/c of mine. You can ask the administrator for that. They appear because I'm asking if the act of using PRC flag for Hong Kong is appropiate in a forum, making some other people trying to change it. Another point is that Hong Kong has long been treated seperately from China, and even the United Kingdom before 1997. Hong Kong's own flag is used in many occasions even the Olympics. Do you need to complain to the IOC that Hong Kong uses it's own flag for joining the competition? You are not trying to make a consensus as well by saying what I feels like "oh I edit THIS page nigga, now get out of MY PAGE nigga". GB Lothian (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, your last line is totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia discussion - you're new here, so I'll let it slide, but don't do something that again. Second, the Olympics is its own thing. The point is this: does Hong Kong have its own seat at the U.N.? No. Ergo, it's not it's own country.

At this point, I'm going to stop reverting, because it's time for the other editors of this page to step up. But it would be a shame if your clear attempts at issue advocacy bullying are allowed to succeed... --IJBall (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally inappropriate, and that's what I feels like too when you say "I edit THIS page". If you pay that much attention to details you really shouldn't allow HKG flag to appear in any other wikipedia page to represent Hong Kong. And if the UN theory applies, The Republic of China(Taiwan) should use the PRC flag as well. Plus not all countries in the world are a member of the UN(I'm not saying HK is a country, just saying the UN doesn't represent the whole world either). Also the fact that it's clearly not bullying and doubtfully being advocacy. If some other people come along and change the HKG flag back to the PRC flag should I say you all being advocacy as well? I don't think so.GB Lothian (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Hong Konh special administration region is established based on the sino british jointed declaration. Under the jointed declaration, Hong Kong enjoys high autonomy, and China only have a say on defence and foreign affair. Others, like city planning, immigration, are home affairs of Hong Kong, like it or not. Metro systems planning definitely belongs to home affairs. In this case, China doesn't represent Hong Kong, and it is certain Hong Kong flag should be used in stead of China flag. IJBall repeatedly emphasis China own the sovereignty of Hong Kong. I agree with that, but please note that owning the sovereignty doesn't mean it represent Hong Kong in this issue. And even if there is a conference called international metro system summit, Hong Kong flag would still be used and be rised outside the venue in parallel with China and other countries flags. Like it or not, it is Hong Kong's right based on the Sino British jointed declaration.pinkguardian (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkguardian (talk • contribs)

Strongly oppose HKG flag issue is simply disputable, there is no right solution (thus changing from one to another will not stop discussions). But this list of metro systems, not list of countries (or towns), so this dispute is totally out of scope of this article. In fact, all flags can be removed without big harm to the list. --Jklamo (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is the best solution if you think this kind of argument is out of scope. GB Lothian (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Still seeing no evidence of Consensus for the original change in the HK flag (which would be necessary to leave it as the HKG flag), and the arguments in favor still appear weak (by the arguments made here, we should change the Glasgow flag to Scotland, and all of the U.S. flag to state flags - the arguments make no sense...). The nation column in this list is not supposed to be that complicated - it's just supposed to list what country the system is in, nothing more complicated than that. But even in the arguments above, it is conceded that Hong Kong is in fact not its own country, but part of China. Any other position would seems to be nonobjective, and would appear to violate WP's policy on Advocacy. I'll be reverting back to the original Chinese flag in the near future, based on these discussions so far... --IJBall (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I still cannot see any sort of advocacy right now. Hong Kong may not be a independent country, but using HKG flag for Hong Kong is an international consensus. Long been. You still call +44 for Scotland. There is no broader check between Scotland and England. England and Scotland share the same passport. You don't see Scottish Team with it's own flag in the Olympics. There is nothing completely right in this world. There is something very interesting called "exceptions". GB Lothian (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You claim there's "consensus" to use HKG flag internationally. There is absolutely no such thing. Most non-HK'ers view HG as part of China. And it's absolutely advocacy - it's telling that pretty much the only people pushing for this change are editors from HK. Everyone else strongly prefers to leave the flag HK as PRC.

Once again, the arguments in favor of using the HKG flag are incredibly weak - even the people pushing for it concede that HK is not its own nation. As such, this list should use PRC for HK. There are lists on Wiki where separating out HK from PRC might be appropriate. This list isn't one of them.

At this point, I'm not going to revert, because it's time for other editors to step up. But again, it'll be a shame if HK'ers pushing HKG advocacy win this battle here. (And they shouldn't expect to win this fight elsewhere on Wiki...) --IJBall (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that is why people who want PRC flag to represents Hong Kong are those who don't know Hong Kong very well. I'm not going to repeat my point as that will become annoying. And you will only say oh this is advocacy whatever. GB Lothian (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose I don't see the point of HK having its own flag. If it was for GDP calculation then it should use the HK flag because it has something to do with the Hong Kong being a highly different and autonomous section of China. Same for population, China's count doesn't include Hong Kong in other words Hong Kong's is subtracted from it. The list would be cumbersome if it where to have duplicate PRC flags. But for metro systems, Hong Kong's ridership doesn't change Beijing's ridership if Hong Kong was separate or not. A metro system is a metro system regardless of the country it's in. Whether or not the Hong Kong is part of China is an identity issue among its populace and policy makers. That being said, this issue is way beyond the scope of this article.Terramorphous (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong has long been uses it's own flag at international events. This is a tradition. Let's be honest, this is very possibly the only page in wikipedia uses PRC flag for Hon Kong. Moreover, everything you mentioned above is not related to Peking anyway. GB Lothian (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support. I thought this was wonky. Hong Kong is, functionally speaking, far more separate than not, and it's absolutely more common in practice to use the Hong Kong flag to represent the city-state rather than the PRC flag. To use the PRC flag in this case would be highly unusual. Citobun (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Support We should follow the general policy and not discuss the status of Hongkong in this article. I searched and found some other list articles with flags. All use the Hongkong flag for Hongkong. These list articles I found are List of countries with most skyscrapers, List of stock exchange opening times, List of countries by tax rates, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of longest bridges in the world, List of Dragonair destinations, List of conglomerates. --BIL (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't listed separately here, which is all that should matter in this discussion. What other pages on Wiki do, or don't do, isn't germane to this discussion, IMO. (And I'd argue that List of countries with most skyscrapers and List of countries by tax rates, both of which have the word "country" in their titles, have this exactly wrong if they're using HKG...) In any case, I'm going to drop this, because this page's "Flag column" doesn't have a column heading of "country" or "nation" - if it did, there's no question that using Hong Kong would be incorrect... --IJBall (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's listed separately most everywhere else off Wikipedia, too. It's just an established norm based on the fact that the city is functionally sovereign in most respects and to argue for a change is quibbling over semantics. As someone in Hong Kong used to finding HK separately in lists online, it would strike me as very unusual to see HK represented by the PRC flag. Citobun (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Again. I don't see Republic of Taiwan has a membership either. United Nation DOES NOT represent all countries. GB Lothian (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the list that matters on Wiki: List of sovereign states. This should determine what is listed as a country, and what isn't. Notice that Hong Kong is listed under China (PRC). If the 'flags' column in this table had a label heading of "Country" or "Nation", there'd be no question what flag should be listed. --IJBall (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

And so it seems we're back here again. User:Citobun is, as of now, the only person still pushing for the HGK flag. He himself admits there is no WP:Consensus for his position. Worse, the only people who backed up his original position on this was someone who was apparently a WP:SPA who hasn't contributed to Wiki since Dec. 2013, and an IP a suspicious Wiki account that has all of one contribution - to this talk page.

Meanwhile, this page is supposed to parallel the List of metro systems (something Citobun has now ignored twice, without response), and at the Metro list there is strong consensus for no HKG (or PUR) flag. In fact, taking out Citobun's original supporters that I talked about above, that was basically the majority position here too.

So, is anyone else going to stand up for Citobun's position? Or is it, as I suspect, just Citobun pushing this HKG flag business?...

We really need to just put this nonsense aside, and follow the List of metro systems as this list is intended to. --IJBall (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, to follow-up further, over at the List of metro systems, a compromise has essentially been arrived at. So, to show I am not completely unreasonable on this issue, I think the following would be an acceptable compromise for this list (and something similar can be done for Puerto Rico):

Mass Transit Railway, Hong Kong () 1600 million 2013

I think it's clear if this isn't acceptable compromise, then there is clearly another agenda going on here... --IJBall (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people both here and at other similar list articles who think identifying Hong Kong with the PRC flag would place Wikipedia in the position of awkwardly skirting an established norm used in basically every other non-Wikipedia international list or ranking.

I looked through the thread and can't figure out which single-purpose IP address you're talking about, but I kind of object to your calling it "suspicious" as if it were me, as if I'm really the only person who feels that way. Which, given the huge amount of discussion on this topic in all sorts of lists, is not the case (and you know that).

It's really absurd to single me out like this, and to accuse everyone who disagrees with you a "nationalist". For me, it's just a matter of adhering what to what is common practice everywhere else. I know your obsession with rules, and I know that's your motivation. You already proved that with your ridiculous claim that the East Rail Line isn't a metro service (talk about "nonsense"). You should try being a bit less inflexible.

If you don't have consensus to make the change, it should remain unchanged. Hong Kong was long identified in this article using the Hong Kong flag. Citobun (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, Hong Kong was "long identified" (for at least a year) using the PRC flag in this list too, which means it was the consensus choice until the SPA came around. Second, I'm not implying you are the single-contribution Pinkguardian account (the SPA account seems like a more likely candidate on that score, though I'm not actually claiming that either...), though it does demonstate that it shouldn't carry as much weight as the opinions of long-time editors. Third, I don't think repeatedly insulting me is helping your position any, nor is distorting what I actually said. Fourth, there is no "common practice" on Wikipedia, re: Hong Kong - some lists (where appropriate - e.g. List of countries by tax rates) break it out separately (though I'll note they often use a "modifier" to the label "Country" to denote the more inclusive nature of their list), other lists (most importantly the List of metro systems, but also for example List of countries without armed forces) do not and stick to a List of sovereign states definition for "Country". That really depends on what kind of list it is, and what kind of information they are aggregating. And, really, either way is fine, as long as the definition of "Country" used is clearly defined in their article.

The important point is that how each list handles this is governed by Consensus. This list, as it says right there in the article lede, is supposed to parallel the List of metro systems, and has for a long time. The Consensus at metro systems for the definition of "Country" is: "Country (i.e. independent nation or sovereign state) in which the metro system is located." That is the overwhelming consensus choice, as anyone who can check the Talk page can confirm for themselves. Even such, a special consideration, that I've outline above, has been implemented for Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, to denote their unique "special status". As of right now, you are the only editor who is pushing the "HKG-only solution". Why don't we just implement the compromise outlined above, which both keeps this list in parallel with the List of metro systems, and gives both the PRC and the HKG crowd what they want? Can we just move on and do that please? --IJBall (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken that the PRC flag was used here previously...I looked at a few random revisions: 500 revisions ago, 1000 revisions ago, back to 2008 or so when the flags were added and it always used the HKG flag.

I haven't used any sockpuppet accounts or IP addresses to contribute to this discussion, so please stop suggesting it (which you are definitely doing by saying "is it, as I suspect, just Citobun pushing this"). I guess you're referring to GB Lothian and the IP 116.48.155.127, neither of which are me...so I am definitely not "the only editor who is pushing for the HKG-only solution".

Forgive me for being a bit defensive in response to being singled out for holding an opinion which is definitely not only my own. Like GB Lothian said, you have really appropriated these metro system lists and rankings as your own, have imposed your will on a number of issues and have kind of a dictatorial tone in edit summaries and on talk pages. But I am the one most actively reverting this change, and I feel like you are trying to bully me in singling me out, when there are clearly at least four other users on this talk page who agree with me (though I concede a couple are single-purpose accounts, while others like User:BIL are not).

I wrote that treating HK separately in rankings is common practice in "non-Wikipedia" contexts, which I think matters more than what goes on elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Since the article used the HK flag long previously, and since WP:No consensus states that "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the [change]", and since I have hopefully convinced you that I am not using any sockpuppets and that there is therefore no consensus – I feel it should be reverted to its original state, i.e. using the HKG flag. Citobun (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No "bullying" is implied here, nor, again, am I implying you are 'sock-puppeting'. But, prior to SPA GB Lothian, the status quo was to use the PRC flag (back through at least 2013), which is what editor Oknazevad meant back on March 27 when he reverted you.

The truth remains that, currently (i.e. during 2014), you are the only editor who keeps pushing the HKG flag (which is what I meant by, "...as I suspect, just Citobun pushing this..."). And the fact that you keep rejecting a reasonable compromise (and also continue launching personal attacks on me, and keep ascribing to me things I haven't said and positions I have not taken) says something... --IJBall (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The HKG flag was used for the vast majority of the existence of this article (years).

Any of those criticisms you are leveling on me could easily be applied to you too. Am I "pushing" anything? I want to sustain the long-established status quo, while you are "pushing" for the change. Am I the "only editor (still)" arguing this point? No, other people expressed the same opinion as mine, just as others agreed with you – at this point, we're the only two arguing here. If I made any personal attack on you, I think I could also say you did the same of me, and I don't think I misquoted you, maybe misinterpreted you once. Anyway, we can both agree focusing on this stuff is not constructive.

I want to articulate my point of view on this issue, since I feel it has been misinterpreted as some issue of nationalism. We in Hong Kong, like people anywhere else, are used to viewing ourselves in rankings, lists, etc...and my experience 90% of the time is to find the city measured separately from mainland China because it operates largely as a city-state. It's just a norm, common practice and I feel to have Wikipedia deviate from this norm solely because Hong Kong is not a sovereign state is being over-dedicated to pedantics and rules...like someone who might suggest a large island is no longer an island after a new causeway opens. That isn't meant as a personal slight, just want to explain my view.

I appreciate that you have developed a compromise. I have been slow to respond because I wanted to wait and see if anyone else would chime in, though I think the length of this thread probably turns people off from contributing. In the continuing absence of consensus, I'm going to revert back to the HKG and Puerto Rico flags. I still disagree with your compromise because ultimately, at the core of things, it's the same thing...but if we get more input and the consensus is to adopt it, I can live with it because it is better than the alternative. I think we could also use a word from someone with familiarity on the status of Puerto Rico, which I know nothing about.

In a nutshell: I think the status quo should remain until we get more opinions, and also see whether or not this article will be merged into List of metro systems, in which case I guess this whole discussion would be irrelevant as I see you have already implemented your compromise there. Citobun (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong is only conventionally regarded as a city, so much as (Greater) London is a 'city' in comparative contexts among major metropolitans. There's no law that defines HK as a city, whereas in London's case the city charters are held instead by City of London and City of Westminster, the latter of which a borough of Greater London. In the contexts of country comparisons, HK is better described as a dependency or a dependent territory, which is a subset of country, alongside sovereign states. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(@IJBall (15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)) Regarding list of tax rates, you haven't actually answered my question why you think the separation of rail systems between HK and China is different from that of their tax systems.[1][2]

Regarding so-called 'consensus': No, consensus isn't applied in this way. Wikipedia has to stick with how other similar matters are dealt with within and beyond Wikipedia. Barack Obama is still the 44th and current president of the United States even if there's a consensus to suggest that he weren't. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, that isn't how consensus works. But further discussion on this issue is pointless. --IJBall (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Submitted for the record: Quote from GovHK website's "Facts" page: "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Following British rule from 1842 to 1997, China assumed sovereignty under the 'one country, two systems' principle." Thus, even HKG doesn't consider itself a "country"... --IJBall (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What IJBall put up right above was a copy-and-paste quote of Zanhe's comment under other talk pages.. and so for the record, here's my comments under those talk pages in response to Zanhe's comment:

• Both the Hong Kong and the Chinese governments consistently present Hong Kong alongside other countries, not alongside Chinese provinces and cities, for whatever international comparison or listing purposes, as you can tell from the links above, e.g., the HKMA one which also includes Bermuda, Jersey and Guernsey.

  And here's how Hong Kong deals with other countries: [3], [4].

• Zanhe I'm afraid you're cherrypicking, not presenting the full picture, and taking words out of contexts. In the 'One country, two systems' saying, the word 'country' is actually a direct (mis)translation of the Chinese vocabulary guójiā. Chinese languages lack the separate concepts of 'sovereign state' and country, and the term guójiā means 'sovereign state(s)'.

116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Seoul

The list intro says that “this list is using definitions (and systems) from list of metro systems.”

The list has a “Seoul Metropolitan Subway,” and gives its ridership at 2560 million.

A “Seoul Metropolitan Subway” does not exist at list of metro systems.”

List of metro systems counts a metro with a separate operator as a separate metro. For example, it counts separately the Tokyo Metro, the Toei Subway, the Rinkai Line, and the Yamanote Line (which is not a metro of its own, but a single line of in the network of the East Japan Railway Company). It also counts separately the S-Bahns and U-Bahns of large German cities. All despite the fact that they, somehow, are “owned” by “the government.”

List of metro systems had an entry for “Seoul Metropolitan Subway.” List of metro systems no longer does. This entry not was not in accordance with how List of metro systems approaches the topic. Its data also were compiled with a significant amount of Original Research.

If you are still using definitions (and systems) from list of metro systems, it would stand to reason to do this also for Seoul. If you run into trouble when doing so, please let me know.

I thank you for your sometimes difficult work of compiling ridership data from around the world, and especially for supplying each entry with references. I wish, List of metro systems would have a reflist as impressive as yours.

This member of WikiProject Cleanup is ready to help. BsBsBs (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - renamed, as per system name on List of metro systems. --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger

I disagree. Specific lists are necessary in many cases. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm now ambivalent on the question. But I'll only support a merger, if the Total rapid transit systems statistics by country article is nominated for deletion as part of a "package" deal for the merger... --IJBall (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This list should be merged, the info contained would only add two columns to List of metro systems and would help in comparing physical size and passenger movements. Regarding List of total rapid transit systems statistics by country, I don't know how that could be merged with another article, so suggest it should be another discussion. Liamdavies (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I'd oppose a merger if it meant merging all of this data into one table (List of metro systems doesn't really have room for another column, let alone two!). I thought the original proposal was to add this as a separate table/section further down the page at List of metro systems, though perhaps I was mistaken... --IJBall (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Greatly support it. The template by Staglit is excellent. I would probably organize the information in the order: name-country-opening year-ridership-stations-system length-last extension. However, this is going to be discussed! :) I also support deleting List of total rapid transit systems statistics by country. --Pavlovič (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: See also, parallel discussion at - Talk:List of metro systems.

Merger, test Table

Hello. I have been working on a test table for List of Metro Systems that includes ridership statistics. If this change is approved, then this page may be deleted. Any thoughts? feel free to edit my User:Staglit/sandbox Staglit (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Important Update

OK, there is new info to discuss about the potential 'merge' (and the "merged" table at over at Staglit's sandbox page) at the List of metro systems Talk page - please head over there to discuss the potential merge of this page and the List of metro systems... --IJBall (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Final update at: the List of metro systems Talk page – all interested parties please read it, because this article is on its way to being deleted and replaced with a REDIRECT tag in the very, very near future! --IJBall (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sao Paulo CPTM is a metro

The Sao Paulo figures must include CPTM figures.

It's not just because one of Sao Paulo's metro systems is called "Metro" and the other one isn't, that the other one should be forgotten. CPTM is not a "commuter train" system, it is a metro system transporting over 2 million people a day in 6 lines with headways as low as 4 minutes.

CPTM operates low-headway urban trains within urban perimeter, and it has FREE TRANSFER to the "Metro" system.

This official source = http://www.cptm.sp.gov.br/e_contabeis/RelAdministrativo_2012.PDF

says that CPTM transported 764 million passengers in 2012. That's significant. Added to the CMSP (Metro) company figures, Sao Paulo would have 1 billion 652 million annual passengers, sitting between New York and Mexico City.

So unless anyone opposes, I will be changing Sao Paulo's figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopcwiki (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to make this case over at List of metro systems, not here. The figures here will be reverted, until the system gets added over there. --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopcwiki (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Final Update

Now that the ridership data has been integrated in to the listings over at List of metro systems, this page will be converted in to a 'Redirect' page within the next 48 hours. This is the final update on the 'merge to' List of metro systems project. --IJBall (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And,  Done! The 'merge' project is complete, and this page is now closed out (i.e. turned in to a 'Redirect' page) in favor of integrating the ridership data into the List of metro systems. --IJBall (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)