Talk:List of railway lines in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope[edit]

Note that there is no List of railways in Hong Kong so I don't see how anyone could object to including railways that link with HK in here. Furthermore, Hong Kong is part of China now so I don't see what the fuss is about. enochlau (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuss is about whether the lead sentence should mention HK or not. Reversion war is all about taking out (or including) that one sentence. Is this WP:LAME ? novacatz 09:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All similar lists are organised according to jurisdiction, not geographical area. In English the word "China" may mean China the geographical region, the People's Republic of China (the sovereign state/regime/polity/government controlling the majority of the region) or mainland China alone (the PRC minus Hong Kong and Macau).

Further, nobody is removing the railway that is linked to Hong Kong (i.e. the Jingjiu Railway). Quite the opposite, some people are trying to include railways that are entirely within Hong Kong (e.g. [1]). — Instantnood 09:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (modified 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Why would a railway entirely within Hong Kong not be part of a list of railways in China? If the scope of the article is China, ignoring political boundaries, then HK is part. If the scope of the article is China, meaning the PRC, then HK is part. So what is there to object to? HK is part of China. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And some folks are attempting to remove them from this article [2]. This removal, btw, occured on 18:57, 1 August 2005, and I only moved in to restore them at 19:07, 1 August 2005. Alanmak, the original writer of this list, was responsible for adding them. So firstly, I take issue with instantnood's attempt in slandering my name. Secondly, I question what happened to his "revert to the original article's intention" clause he has been preaching for donkey years when explaining his edit warring in such articles like List of companies in the People's Republic of China?--Huaiwei 15:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The word China can also be used to refer to mainland China alone in actual everyday usage. Many articles and categories on Wikipedia were and are created according to this usage of the word China. — Instantnood 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what? SchmuckyTheCat 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So the lead sentence can be potentially confusing - reader does not know if the article will have railways in Mainland China only or other terroritories as well. novacatz 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is concern over confusions, than can someone explain why HK, Macau and Taiwan are included in Image:ChinaRailwayNetwork.png? Why early versions[3] of this article already includes railways into HK and within HK? (as opposed to instantnood's citation above portraying me as the one adding them?)--Huaiwei 15:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you are the one who first added them. What I said was that some users are trying to include them in their edits. The map represents the point of view of the creator, not mine. It has already brought protests regarding the Indian-PRC border. — Instantnood 16:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You dont have to say something to convey a point (and which I have had to remind you a milion times). I demand an explaination behind your choice in citing my edit when you have a choice in citing other's edits. You are not the map's illustrator, so of coz it does not represent your POV. But that does not mean you cant explain their inclusion relative to this discussion. That there is an issue with the border is obviously a side issue we do not have to discuss here, and which I feel appears to be your attempt to sidetrack the main discussion at hand.--Huaiwei 17:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simple.. yours was the most recent one when I made that comment. The map is relevant to this list, but it may not be necessarily created following the same policy/ies regarding the scope of the list. Although a sidetrack, the Indian-PRC border issue tells the map itself is debated. — Instantnood 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how very simple indeed, er? :) The map was drawn by the same person who wrote the majority of this list. That it may not follow the same policy blah blah blah only comes about because you try to change its scope. So again I ask...what happend to your "respect the original scope" theory? So the map is debated because of the border, which is completely unrelated to this issue. If there is a dispute over the colour or the font size, are you going to mention that as well as thou it somehow contributed anything here?--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with the scope of this list, I chose Alanmak's preference when I applied the {{twoversions}} tag. I had not edited this list since the tag was voted to deletion, and has left the list for other wikipedians to decide. It turns out that you're not respecting the points of view of other wikipedians. — Instantnood 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who honestly gives a damn over which version you use when abusing the twoversions tag? And so what if you have not reverted? The so-called "points of view of other wikipedians" is an anon who mysteriously reverted to your preferred version. For all we know, the possibility of you yourself making that edit without logging on is ever present, so what kind of "respect" should be accorded as far as you are concerned?--Huaiwei 18:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are all other edits to define this list as mainland China-specific made by anonymous users? You can also check the IP addresses of the anonymous users and see if the possibility exists or not. — Instantnood 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So are you talking about the period after the Arbcom, or since the beginning of this article? If you want to shift goalposts, please at least give me some room in shifting mine as well. As for IP addresses, what do those numbers tell me anything about possibilities? Perhaps you can enlighten me on this?--Huaiwei 19:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After I've stopped edit the list in the previous round [4]. I have no obligation to " enlighten " you on how to check an IP address. — Instantnood 09:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
lol! I see little logic in what you just said, and that seems to me to be one of the worse excuses one can give when coming under scrutinisation over their obvious bias and inconsistency, plus the possiblity of abusing wikipedia by hiding behind anons. I am not sure if it was pure coincidence when I notice anons doing such reverts only in specific dispute pages. I am a sticker for patterns, and I would love you to educate me further on how to read IP patterns this time? ;)--Huaiwei 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if all other edits to define this list as mainland China-specific were made by anonymous users [5], and you're not answering. There are many websites where you can check the origin of an IP address. Check before you went on to unfounded wild guessings. — Instantnood 14:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I answer a question which isnt even relevant to what I was saying? I demanded to know if you are abusing wikipedia. How does your question give any light to that besides sounding like a question plucked from the wild? If you are going to demonstrate your innocence, do it clearly in writing. Your reluctance seems to be suggesting that guilt is at play here.--Huaiwei 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who boldly claim " The so-called "points of view of other wikipedians" is an anon who mysteriously reverted to your preferred version. " [6], regardless of the fact that user:Novacatz has also made a similar edit [7]. It makes me wonder if you're truly accountable with what you say. It seems like you, for this time, didn't much bother to check if what you said was entirely true. Please proof if that IP address has any connection with me [8] before the wild guessings, or else no unfounded accusations.. please. The burden to proof is with you. It's not like guilty unless proven to be innocent. — Instantnood 15:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so its one anon and one Novacatz, a known lacky of your policies? I am so sorry if I missed him out, but if you consider me as unaccountable, do you honestly think I care? And if you dont teach me how to analyse IPs, how do you think I am going to be able to show any connection of disconnection? Lol!--Huaiwei 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They look and see Hong Kong, and well, there is the answer to that. Most readers are neither aware nor care about the mainland versus SARS issue - in that sense it is less confusing to just say "China" meaning all of China. SchmuckyTheCat 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other issues that most readers are not aware nor care about. You can put your words in their mouth by claiming they mean to refer to all of China by saying China. What is all of China, i.e. the limit of the geographical region, is also subject to different points of view. (By the way, SARs are not SARS.) — Instantnood 16:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SARS are not neccesarily Severe acute respiratory syndrome unless you are being particularly sensitive towards it.--Huaiwei 17:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know what else may SARS be referring to. — Instantnood 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SARS SARS SARS SARS SARS SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
South African Revenue Service? Samples of Anonymised Records? Seen Arrogant Rats Somewhere? lol!--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What exactly is the problem[edit]

Instead of polluting the page history with endless reverts can we discuss here what exactly is the problem ? As I can see ... two issues:

1. Should HK be included? 2. Should there be a mention of HK in lead sentence?

Currently, is anyone actually advocating getting rid of HK references in the article? Seems like that is one of the arugment points but that is not actually being edited over atm???

For 2, what is the case for not mentioning it? Mentioning it will make explicit what is on the page. This is not an endorsement or otherwise of HK / China soverignity -- it is just spelling out clearly what is on the page. Is there an argument here? novacatz 15:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your latest revert than. Saying people are not using this talkpage is not a valid reason for reversion.--Huaiwei 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
  1. I think it all boils down to what we call "China". As Novacatz mentions, I don't think it's a matter of sovereignty - just decide what we want in this article. Note that List of railways in Hong Kong actually redirects somewhere useful now, so maybe we don't need to include HK now? No harm including it of course...
  2. If we decide to include HK in this article, why not mention it in the first paragraph? Wikipedia isn't exactly running out of space. Making it clear and explicit should be our first priority.enochlau (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the history was here, but—SAR or not—Hong Kong is part of the PRC now and Wiki editors should get over that basic fact. Currently there doesn't seem to be Hong Kong content here at all, so I've linked to it via the intra-city section. — LlywelynII 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about defunct railways?[edit]

Sun Ning Railway Company. Someone else can decide whether to include it. - Jmabel | Talk 09:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say this. We need the historical rail lines either mentioned here or split off and linked. — LlywelynII 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename[edit]

I propose this page be renamed and moved to List of railway lines in China, as per other such articles. --Nick Moss (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of railway lines in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freight-only railways[edit]

Rather than have a section for coal transportation railways, I think it would be better to simply list the freight lines with the passenger lines in the rest of the article, adding "(freight only)". At least one of the lines in the coal transportation section does run passenger trains. NemesisAT (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_railway_lines_in_China&oldid=1206163982"