Talk:Moscow Metro/Archive 2

Secret Government Line

Has anyone heard about a "secret" government metro in Moscow?

I think this is a map of it, but I don't speak Russian: http://www.metro.ru:8082/map/secret_map.html

Russian wikipedia has something about it.  It is unofficially named "Metro-2", official name seems to be D6 (see ru:Московское метро) — Monedula 08:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About the sources for the indepentent studies, citing from the first two (of 3) of them:

1. "The first section of the 'Kremlin line' (Metro-2), commissioned in 1967, linked the Central Committee building on Staraya Ploshchad and the Kremlin with an underground town at Ramenki and Vnukovo-2 Airport," the source said

2. The existence of "Metro 2", as it has become known, has long been rumoured. Officially, even in these post-Soviet times, it does not exist. Agents of the FSB, the successor to the KGB, called in one Russian journalist for questioning after he wrote about the secret network.

"the source said" (to the journalist), "FSB agents questioned a journalist" — doesn't sound like studies. I think we should either provide some references to the real (independent) studies, or remove the mentioning of them, otherwise it'd be non-encyclopaedic, imo. Sascha. 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an independent study :[1]. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice site, like it very much, thank u for mentioning it! As for the "secret metro" section the author states right away that it's all no more then his personal opinion on the subject. And then he goes on to tell his opinion, sometimes citing no sources, sometimes citing the other sites, and the first one I checked was citing him back and it's all more logically called "information circulating on the Internet" which to me is something different from what the phrase "independent study" implies.

Hope you see what i mean — we all'd like to think there is somethin' big and top secret down there. But we should be careful not to mislead the reader about what is known for a fact and what is, well, not Sascha. 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Transfers

Basically I deliberately removed the transfer between Aleksandrovskiy Sad and Borovitskaya as well between Okhotnyi Ryad and Ploschad Revolutsii, as a they are not direct. Also the Kashirskaya article is a load of nonsense and incorrect especially the schematic, I want the person who put that up to expalain himself. Also although I did KRL, TKL, KlL, STL and LL, I can't do this forever and need some help.

Templates are also a bugger as I tried to remove the grey section from the Alex. Sad of the FL and the red from the Pl. Rev. of APL and somehow messed things up...sorry. Can someone also remove the blue tranfer from Okhotniy Ryad on the SL template.

Language

When I wrote my headings for the lines 6-11 I used a Russian transliteration as follows Ы - i ий - iy ии - ii ь - ' щ - sch yet as the entries for the KRL started to be filled up someone thought that my tranliterations might be good to change, yet I think that it is absurd as it confuses LeninskY and PobedY. Also please use British spelling and grammar.

Someone just removed all the apostrophes in transliterated station names. However official metro maps use these apostrophes in their transliteration (eg. Vorob'evy Gory, Altuf'evo). I think they should be put back, but maybe Kuban kazak wants to explain why he removed them. Saintamh 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WP policy clearly states no apostrophes in titles. IMHO its correct as foreigners will never prounce the names right anyway, and apostrophes will only confuse them. Besides only some transliterations use them (whilst others do not ). -- Kuban kazak 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. Saintamh 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This apostrophes are not apostrophes, but letters in Russian. Without them prounouncing become completely incorrect. This and other symbols transllitirated by commonly accepted translitiration rule (although official rule is differs), where Ы and Й - Y, Щ - SHCH, Ь - ' and Ъ - nothing. Altuf'evo and Altufevo are two completely different words. Elk Salmon 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? No apostrophes in titles and text, that is the adopted transliteration policy.--Kuban Cossack 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is does matter. Removing this letter ' making prounouncing completely different.

1. look at official map. there are ' letter in transliteration

2. Transliteration of Russian into English. Commonly using standard is close to BGN with exception of Ё. It is transliterating as YO. This commonly popular standard using on official map as well. Elk Salmon 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is BGN standard NOT wikipedia standard. Official map can use any translit it likes, no WP article transliterationg Russian uses apostrophes in the text. See Romanization of Russian on WP pracitices and I quote: ь (мягкий знак) - Omitted also see the note about the apostrophe sign on the end.--Kuban Cossack 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no forced standard for WP. According to all standards Ь translitirating as '. Look at first table, not at second. Plus. Second say "This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources." and it says that letter ' ommited in cases. Not every time. Reverting article to official Moscow metro names. Elk Salmon 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Start a mediation in that case.--Kuban Cossack 09:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian is what Wikipedia should follow. Russias official transcription into latin letters is not specifically into the English language, see all the Boris Yeltsin examples at Transcription (linguistics). --Boivie 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll start from another side. Moscow Metro does define names of lines and stations in English. Since they do, we shouldn't transliterate names of stations and lines from Russian, but should use official source for enlgish names.Elk Salmon 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure they define the names specifically in English, and not only to the Latin alphabet in general? Your question is relevant anyway. --Boivie 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not officially defined. For most of Russians Roman is even to English. Here is collection of lastest maps. First three are official. [2]. Look at UrbanRail. They use commonly accepted rules as well. [3]Elk Salmon 02:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We do use the official translations, but we simply apply WP policies to them. Apostrophes are a no-no. Everything else is suitable. --Kuban Cossack 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet again. Not apostrophe, but letter. Elk Salmon 02:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What?--Kuban Cossack 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Template links

I have had extreame difficulty accessing the templates so here they are

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sokolnicheskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Zamoskvoretskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Filyovskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Koltsevaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kalininskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lyublinskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kakhovskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Butovskaya_Light_Metro_Line

Route Length

It is 278.3 km. Not 277.9. Metro officials using 100 meters narrow piece to calculate the route length. Not full pieces are cut from the official figure. Elk Salmon 13:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 According to http://www.mosmetro.ru/ the route lenght is as of 276,1 Km.

This figure wasn't updated on official site after opening of Business Center station (2,2km branch).Elk Salmon 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

81-805.VIP (deluxe) motor car and cargo trains

I found this page today on the Art.Lebedev website, the page is dated 01Apr2006.

http://www.artlebedev.com/portfolio/metrovagon/

It talks about a VIP car for businesspeople based on the 81-805 cars, which would cost an extra $100RUR and run on the Filevskaya line. I can't read Russian, so it would be hard for me to go on the Moscow Metro site to find the original press release that was quoted to cross-check. Maybe an April Fool's joke?

The studio is for innovative artwork designs and that was one of them... although would suit for the Metro 2 of course.--Kuban Cossack 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a hoax :) Sascha. 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fili line extension to Savelovskaya has been confirmed.

It has been confirmed by Gaev. Construction is expecting to begin at the end of 2007. http://www.vesti.ru/news.html?id=89833

With finishing in 36-40 months (in 2010) http://www.finiz.ru/cfin/tmpl-art/id_art-991393

it means several other project could be postponed, probably novokosino, zhulebino and zyablikovo extensions...

Elk Salmon 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) [much]

No extension has been confirmed and Gaev said something completely different. The real talk is only about completing the technical plan some time this year. Words 'construction might be started' mean just that - there is a technical possibility to start the construction in 2007 (because the technical documentation will be completed). That does not mean that 'the extension has been confirmed' and it does not mean that 'the construction is expecting to begin' (wrong English). The decision will not be taken until well into 2007 - the programme for 2008-2010 does not yet exist as an approved document.

First smartcards in Europe?

I was wondering. As far as i know Hong Kong MTR fully implemented smartcard in 1997. Moscow Metro fully implemented them from 1st september 1998. Does Moscow Metro was first in Europe?Elk Salmon 13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

'Smart-cards' in Moscow are NOT SMART CARDS at all even though they are called so. Smart-cards should contain integrated circuits - the Moscow metro cards are magnetic and not chip-based. MOSCOW HAS NOT YET IMPLEMENTED SMART CARDS AT ALL and THEREFORE IS NOT THE FIRST IN EUROPE.

The first in Europe was London in 1998. The smart-cards were introduced in London in parallel with normal tickets. For long their use was limited due to privacy concerns and human rights considerations. The smart cards use rfid technology or open chip contact (not magnetic as in Moscow). The rfid is contactless (unlike open chip contact) allows to track the person's movement and presence within 20 meters (even though officially it is designed for safe-reception at 10 cm only) if the rfid is passive as is typically the case with this smart-cards.

Cards in Moscow do not use rfid - it is old-fashioned magnetic card that does not have any integrated circuitry as smart cards do. Not smart really. Russia does NOT have mass smart card technology application. Even first electronic passports will be based on foreign technology and the contracts are already signed with foreign firms. It is expected that the foreign technology will soon be stolen and adopted within Russia for second wave of passports.

The cards in Moscow are not only not smart. They are not even connected to central computers and not validated like normal smart cards that were first introduced in 80s in banking in the West and in 90s in a number of big transportation systems - Hong Kong (1997), London (1998, in parallel with old tickets), etc. That lack of smartness (integrated circuitry and central computer control) means that Moscow metro's non-smart cards can be easily faked (or programmed as it is sometimes called).

Do not confuse magnetic stripe cards with smart cards.

Exactly. MM uses both magnetic stripe cards and smart cards (with rfid). Sascha. 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

80.229.169.25, please read ticketing paragraph. moscow use both magnetic and smart card. smart card was introduced and fully implemented in 1998. in london in 2003-2004. Elk Salmon 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Images from Metro.ru REALLY usable?

Hi all, I'm creating articles about Moscow metro stations in cs.wikipedia. The thing that I found very strange are the images... Their origin is the Metro.ru page or the other sites, and the licence is {{attribution}}. There are many people I hope who should know more about it; I'm suspected of copyvio by using this pictures... Simply... Is anyhow permitted to use this photos? On the original site, or by mail of the site author or somehow other? Thanks. --Aktron 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre 1973 yes, walks.ru has its own template in Commons, so use that. mymetro.ru agreed for GDFL, and attribution is suitable for Mosmetro.ru.--Kuban Cossack 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

where are you getting your info?

mymetro.ru says 2002-2005 "Моё метро" © Kernel32, Grozny, Andzis

mosmetro.ru says При использовании материалов сайта ссылка на www.mosmetro.ru обязательна ©2005 ГУП "Московский Метрополитен". ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

have you ever studied copyright law? you're just making flying judgements here with no legal basis at all. "fair use" and "public domain" are two completely different and unrelated things. look up the terms on wiki if you're in doubt. lensovet 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Weekday passenger traffic

On a normal weekday Moscow metro carries 8.2 million passengers and on an average day 7.1 million. Breakdown by day of the week: Monday - 7.99 million, Tuesday - 8.09 million, Wednesday - 8.24 million, Thursday - 8.29 million, Friday - 8.39 million, Saturday - 5.14 million, Sunday - 3.84 million.

These are figures for 2005 and are going to be in the annual report with slight alterations.

This shows that the figures for previous years were grossly overestimated. The overestimation concerned non-paying passengers that were not properly and fully accounted for until 2005. The passenger traffic was overestimated by 20-25% as it was claimed in the previous annual reports that almost half the passenger were non-paying. In reality the number of non-paying passenger trips proved to be a lot lower once they started to be accounted for.

80.229.169.25, sign please. Elk Salmon 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest Stretch, deepest station etc.

[4] Park Pobedy - Kievskaya 7028-3832=3196 metres Volgogradsky Prospekt-Tekstilshchiki 8508-5095=3413. However the longest TUNNEL stretch is indeed PP-Kievskaya, as the latter one is partly above ground.--Kuban Cossack 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "topographically highest station"? Pechatniki is the closest to the ground underground station, "the flattest". The highest station above the sea level (and that is how I'd understand "topographically" in this context) is probably Tyoplyi Stan. Sascha. 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

more exact [5]. plus i agree with sascha - nearest to surface is more correct here. Elk Salmon 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, finally post a source to your figures. Elk Salmon 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Map given, if uncertain visit the stations and find the numbers on the tracks. --Kuban Cossack 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations

Are there really Latin transliterations on most of the signs now? This surprises me. I haven't been to Moscow for almost a year, but I'm intrigued that they should suddenly consider it necessary now. Can anyone confirm if it's true? garik 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no any signes with translit. Only maps in trains. And it doesn't matter. Moscow located in Cyrillic world. Elk Salmon 07:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I quite agree. garik 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree — no sign of them apart from small print on "in-car" maps. And it matters, in the sense that if there are no Latin-lettered signs in MM then Wikipedia should not report there are.

L1/12

What really doesn't matter imo is the L1/12 ambiguity. I have never heard in my life someone refering to a line with a number. Any line. And I have never read it in no newspaper or magazine article. Even MM itself doesn't mention those numbers on it's site (in line's descriptions). Apart from small print on the map (where Butovskaya is marked Л1). So in my view one could hardly care less. Sascha. 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

L1 is more name, than number. Nobody refers to this line as to L1. It's 12th line in talk about index number and Butovskaya line in talk about its name. Also. Technically it is heavy metro. Light and Mini words was made up for show off. Note. Light Metro != Light Rails. Light Metro in Moscow is Non-classic heavy metro. Elk Salmon 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

L1 is an official number of the line on the maps and in schematics. It is different from normal Metro, although it was made to be compatible. Light Metro does indeed have a different operation structure and its own logo and staff. So assuming it as a twelfth line is more than incorrect. Considering that strictly speaking it would be part of the Serpukhovsky radius. --Kuban Cossack 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Light Metro is not different. It is usual heavy metro. And please stop removing it. 12 added as index number. Elk Salmon 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look if you ever bother to look onto any perspective map you will notice that the twelfth line is the Solnetsevo-Mytishchenskaya Chordial line. Light Metro is not heavy metro. They are different things that are managed by a separate body. Presentely there is no Line 12 in Moscow. There is a Butovskaya Light Metro line. --Kuban Cossack 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is heavy metro is not defining by comparision with classical Moscow Metro lines. Go to Рaris [6] [7] [8] and you will see much more lighter metro that what is called light in Moscow. But that is still heavy metro. Name light in Moscow was made for show off lines with shorter station and with geometry of way, that breaks allowed rules. Naturally and tecnically it's usual (not Moscow usual) heavy metro. Elk Salmon 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it matters whether they are different or not. It is MM who decides how to designate it's lines and they do it how they see fit. Wikipedia should not try to "correct" MM, just report as is.

Exactly.--Kuban Cossack 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, I'm sure that 99% of the Metro users are not familiar with this "alphanumerical indexes" and possibly don't even know they exist.

Well not really I mean most of the lines are listed in the same order always per [9], [10] and [11]. --Kuban Cossack 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Разъясню по-русски ещё раз. Номера в таблице указаны как № п.п. В скобках к 12ой линии указан официальный номер. Понятно теперь? Elk Salmon 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are not № п.п. — note that there is no 13 in the next line, just M1, and no one is objecting to that. Change the order of lines (e.g. to alphabetical) and those № п.п.s will stuck with their respective metro lines and so will the colors. They are not cardinal numbers but index numbers (as you yourself put it if I'm not mistaken), that's obvious. That's why ur defending the 12 arguing that LM is not so light as light goes, isn't it? And that's why I think 12 there is plain misleading. Maybe just chage the heading # to Line Index — would that satisfy everyone? Sascha. 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Monorail is not metro line, but just operated by Moscow Metro. It's not summing to total metro route length. Butovskaya line, as well as Filyovskaya line, are technically usual heavy metro lines, just differs from classical moscow metro lines. Nobody in Moscow refers to Butovskaya line as to L1, except of official map and few documents. If by name it's always Butovskaya, if by index number - it's 12th. Adding index number reduce misleading in L letter as to refering as light rails. Many people think it's light rails. Elk Salmon 08:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How someone calls Butovskaya is not what matters here. What matters is how MM calls it and it's as clear as day — L1 (Л1). The MM article in Wikipedia deals with Moscow Metro and not with forums on Moscow Metro. And also — Wikipedia should not have it's own agenda, should not try to prove MM wrong on calling Light Metro light or whatever.

Light rails have nothing to do with this. What New York calls subway Russians call Light Metro. What London calls Underground, Russians call Light Metro. What Paris Call RER Russians call underground Railway. Each city has its own system. What are you going to convince Berliners that just because S-Bahn and U-Bahn are interchangible they deserve to be called the same? --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be more than appropriate to explain in the text that "Light" Metro is actually same as normal Metro only above ground and with shorter trains and platforms etc. But to simply change the line index because you don't like it (or disagree with it) is not the way to go. At least not for an encyclopedia Sascha. 09:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, official number is matter so it's in brackets. But there are 12 lines, so index number should show what is 12th line. MM is not wrong on calling it Light metro. It's definitely lighter of classic moscow metro lines, although remain as usual heavy metro. But as well as mini metro (this name is gone already) it is technically not Light Rails. So index number is also show it.

So

1. Index number show exactly which is 12th line.

2. Index number show it's not light rails.

Elk Salmon 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. We are not to challenge Moscow Metro. It does reffer to its lines in order and does treat the BLLM as a separate division (which I am sorry to say it is).
2. What you are doing is Original Research.
3. What matters it to you anyway?
4. Finally when the Solntsevo-Mytishchenskaya Chordial line will open it will be the 12th line officially you can read about it on the main page itself. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Chordial lines are cancelled long time ago. Everything is could be now is usual radial line or even perovo-solntsevo line.

PEROVO-STROGINSKAYA and Solntevo-Mtishenskaya. Don't confuse the two lines. The former is presentely called Kalininskaya Line the latter currentely exists with two unlinked platforms. One at Park Pobedy, one at Delovoy Tsentr. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. It's not an Original Research, because i'm adding index number (there is also official number) to show where is that 12th line mentoined in the article.

And adding index numbers is Original Research. I think the reader will realise that L1 is a different line, and read in the article why it is different. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

3. This is matter because people mixing up it with laght rails, which is not.

That is irrelvant, it is the cities' official designation. What Krivoy Rog calls Metro we call Metro-tram. However what does that have to do with Moscow's official designation.--Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

4. MM does not separate it, but show it on the map with different name. Such term, as light metro, does not exist in standards, it's just a name light. Moscow Metro has 12 (number twelve) lines [12]. By the way - official site does not have any pages that mentoining number L1, except of map. As by index number (№ п.п. а не официальный номер) it's 12th line. More clear numbering will be after opening of next classic line. But as for now it's 12th and SLLM will be 13th (officially L2).Elk Salmon 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again the reader will realise what is what and read why it is different. Don't be an ass (Осел) and assume that you have to expalin everything to them. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk, what are you doing? You yourself are saying that L1 is the official designation so — why all this? We are not counting lines (or stations), but just reporting their designations. As they are. Look, I don't like the fact that MM is named after V.I.Lenin, but it is named after Lenin, that's how things are! If I'd just put down in Wikipedia that MM is named after A.S.Pushkin (cause I like Pushkin better) well, that would be kind of wrong too, isn't it? Sascha. 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

L1 is official number, but phisical index number is 12. Elk Salmon 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Phisical index? Your index?--Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and we're writing official "indexes", exactly like MM writes them on every map in every one of its rail-cars: 1 through 11, L1 and M1. Of course if there are 12 lines in all then the last one will be the 12^th, that is a true statement, but there is a lot more true statements out there, we cannot put them all in that one little box. So we have to write what is relevant and that is official designation.

Everyone knows that after 11 there goes 12, we don't have to remind the readers of that. But not everyone knows that Butovskaya is designated L1, that L1 to Butovskaya is same as 2 to Zamoskvoretskaya.

Look, I'm not getting it: why do you want it so much to see that 12 in that box, why is it so important to you (as it apparently is)? Sascha. 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much, but it help carping readers to be sure it's true metro and not light rails, like in Madrid. As far as I remember they have light metro that does not included to metro statistics. Elk Salmon 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In Mexico City some of the lines are designated by letters while the others are designated by digits. Does this confuse anyone? If someone gets confused by L1 why do you think 12 is a better explanation?--Achp ru 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what do Madrid's standards have to do with Moscow's?--Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there has been a great amount of discussion here that I think it's time for a poll. Any objections yet?? Georgia guy 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that poll will resolve the problem. Phisical index number is necessary to avoid misunderstandings. Light Metro in Moscow is non classic moscow metro, but still metro. While some other cities call light rails as light metro. Elk Salmon 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there, but the best way to explain it is, well, to explain it. In the text of the article. And not just invent some nonexistent designations, that's what would be misleading. Sascha. 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "physical index" and what's physical in such an index? Why does a line need a "physical index"?--Achp ru 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

№. п.п. L1 is official number, while 12th is index number. Elk Salmon 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop discussing the issue in circles. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

how can i stop if you even deny to understand what i'm talking about. Elk Salmon 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone understands what you are trying to say — that you think MM was wrong to designate this line L1. I'm sorry, but I fail see any other logic in your posts. Sascha. 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MM is not wrong on its own. This is untraditional metro line. Therefore they call it light. It have official number as L1, but it is 12th line of MM and index number officially 12. Elk Salmon 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look — people know how to count to twelve, they don't have to be teached that. БЛ is designated L1 on every map and in every train and on the official site. It is not designated 12/(L1) that's an invention and it is misleading. There are lines on the map designated say 10 and 11, but there is non designated 12/(L1). —Sascha. 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sascha.

1. looks you just specially distorting my words for own business.

2. There is no references to number L1 on official site. There is only number of count of lines.

3. People should see index number, becuase there are systems in the world where light rails called light metro.

4. i'll reorganize table to avoid misunderstandings. Elk Salmon 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. No I am not, it is just sometimes difficult to understand the coded talk you prefer to use. That's exactly why I'm opposing it — WP article should be clear and understandable even for the uninitiated.

2. Yes there is — on the map. Official map. Same as in the MM article itself. There you see no 12 and no 12/(L1) — just plain simple L1. —Sascha. 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2004 official report of mosmetro show index number of butovskaya line as 12. [13] page 11 Elk Salmon 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There they are just numbering rows of the table. Note like they use same neat little squares with digits inside them to number days of the week and months of the year. Also it is 2006 now —Sascha. 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbering rows of table is what calling index number. Elk Salmon 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Who calling index number what? You can not make article easier to understand with a coded talk like that. Have a look at the official MM map in the article itself and you will see how БЛ is designated — clear and simple.—Sascha. 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's the list of metro lines equipped with ATC:

1. Sokolnicheskaya
2. Zamoskvoretskaya
3. Koltsevaya
4. Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya
5. Tagansko-Kranspresnenskaya
6. Kalininskaya
7. Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya
8. Lyublinskaya
9. Kakhovskaya
10. Butovskaya

As we can see, Butovskaya's index in this list is 10.

Here's the list of lines operated with Rusich trains:

1. Butovskaya
2. Filyovskaya

As we can see, Butovskaya's index in this list is 1.

Here's the list of lines in alphabetical order of names (as of Russian alphabet):

1. Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya
2. Butovskaya
3. Zamoskvoretskaya
4. Kalininskaya
5. Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya
6. Kakhovskaya
7. Koltsevaya
8. Lyublinskaya
9. Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya
10. Sokolnicheskaya
11. Tagansko-Kranspresnenskaya
12. Filyovskaya

As we can see, Butovskaya's index in this list is 2.

Here's the list of lines in alphabetical order of formation:

1. Sokolnicheskaya
2. Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya
3. Zamoskvoretskaya
4. Koltsevaya
5. Filyovskaya
6. Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya
7. Tagansko-Kranspresnenskaya
8. Kalininskaya
9. Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya
10. Kakhovskaya
11. Lyublinskaya
12. Butovskaya

As we can see, Butovskaya's index in this list is 12.

Which of them is the right index?--Achp ru 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, some bus, tram and trolleybus lines in Moscow have designations other than just numbers, such as "Т", "Бч", "Бк", "А", "830с", "6к"; and some numbers are skipped. Will you please provide us with a listing of their indices? They're so meaningful!--Achp ru 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

More than an hour has passed since I brought up the need for a poll and no one made any objections yet, so I think it's time now: Georgia guy 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should mention L1 only

1. I'm not quite sure how those polls go, but I think it should be L1 only. Wikipedia is not about "correcting" facts, is's about reporting them as they are. Sascha. 23:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
2. L1 is the really used designation, 12 isn't mentioned anywhere.--Achp ru 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Same there is no Line №12 in Moscow. Which would the future Solntsevo-Mytischenskaya Chordial Line. --Kuban Cossack
4. L1 is the right name of this line. // vh16^ru talk 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should mention both L1 and 12

• This is not correction, but explanation of true phisical index number. Elk Salmon 08:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Monorail

And btw — M1 is not Vystavochnaya, it doesn't even have a station with that name. Maybe just call it Monorail or MMTC? Sascha. 20:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found there is article about Moscow Monorail is exist. So I have renamed it to just monorail with link to article. Elk Salmon 16:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Line opened date

Why not to change dates for Filyovskaya and Kakhovskaya lines as of date of phisical opening? I think 1935 and 1969 are more correct figures. While desciptions should contain notes, that lines was formed later. Elk Salmon 08:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That is station opening not line opening, otherwise it will be incosistent. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's strange but true. Nothing should be changed. // vh16^ru talk 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

'The Moscow Metro in Moscow, Russia'

We really can't begin this article with the ridiculously redundant phrase 'The Moscow Metro in Moscow, Russia'. I've edited it to sound a little less preposterous, but it still reads oddly to me. I suppose we need to make it clear to some people that we're not talking about any of the Moscows in Scotland, India or America, but I'm still tempted to remove the whole phrase. If people read this and think they're reading about the underground system of some city in Kansas, they need more help than we're equipped to provide. garik 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW

PEOPLE, could you pick a less interesting subject to argue about? on the english wiki about a russian metro system? 3 russians speaking in english to each other? come on!!!!!!!!!!

let's take a step back. User:Elk, you have a big concern that people will think that L1 is light rail. the place to address this issue is not in the table, but instead in the Notes section which appears right below the table. I also think it is amusing that we're having this argument here, while the ru:Московский метрополитен article has settled on something a long time ago. why reinvent the wheel? how about we copy their table, add another row for the transliterated versions of stations, and leave it like it is!

Now to go back to the light rail issue. Here's an example of what we need to add: « The term "light metro" is simply a marketing ploy currently being used by the administration of the Moscow Metro, and despite its name, is not light at all. Light metro lines are differentiated from "regular" lines because they are located entirely above ground, have shorter platforms, use shorter trains (but still the same metro cars), and are designed for outdoor use. Currently, one line, the Butovskaya Light Metro Line, is in operation, and there are plans to open a second, Solntsevskaya, in the future. »

We could also put a more drawn-out comparison between "light" and "regular" where it really belongs - in the article about the line itself.

Lastly, here's an idea. Instead of engaging in an edit war over two characters, how about translating the rest of the russian article into english?

Let's resolve the matter so that the article can be unlocked and we can make some productive edits! lensovet 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They were again of adding number 12 to L1. OK. So I have reorganised table added row number, class wikitable, color names (because most of people refer to lines by color), updated colors to soft, renamed open year to formation year, what is more correct in this way, splitted monorail to another table. Now it's much more pleasant for an eye. So let's start discussion from new table now. Of course we should add a paragraph about light metro with explanation. But I would like to hear healthy explanation why old table should be restored, instead of 'table is stupid' stated by KK. Same happened to pages about lines, which he reverted with explanation 'version compleately looks screwed up' his version, so called screwed up version. We should discuss these events as well. In my opinion - so called screwed up version is more traditionally organised, easier to read and have all quick info in infobox that reduce time for scrolling and reading. Another thing - there are too many tables on line's pages. At least one of 3 from Timeline, name changes and transfers should be reoganised to usual list. Elk Salmon 09:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk, honestly, I don't see the point of actually spelling out the color names. Because a Russian speaker won't need them in English anyway, and an English speaker won't be helped in any way by knowing the name of the color. I honestly think we should just copy the table from the Russian wiki and just add another column with the transliterated names. I think it makes sense to split off the monorail table as you have done, but it needs to be the same size as the other table - otherwise it just looks weird, esp with middle alignment. I also will have to disagree with you on the indexes, I really don't think they are necessary. Lastly - what do you mean by "formation"? Скажите по-русски, я переведу, но formation, честно говоря, не понятно. I'll go look at the NYC metro in the meantime to see how they do this. lensovet 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS about the line versions, the reason yours is screwed up is because look at the line map - it's on the left of the table of contents and timeline. I can't find a good example, don't really have time to completely redo the layout now. Oops, screwed up the revisions, i'd say his version is WAY more screwed up. Take a look at my edits on Butovskaya. lensovet 18:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help it or will not - it's still important. Also - longer color cells are more pleasant for an eye. Same idea was found in London Underground article. Formation is дата формирования линии. В случае с Каховкой, например, линия была сформирована в 1995 году, но эта секция была открыта в 1969 году. We could add one more column like in LUL table - First section open date. It will be also easier than finding notes, if people know what they looking for. Removing row indexing again will lead to misunderstandings. Of course more open paragraph about light metro should be added, but still people prefer to look on more defiant thing - table in this way. But. Even if column is removed - official numbers should not be in first column (again misunderstandings in subconciousness).

i propose next versions

version one

Name	Official Number and Colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1. Red	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2. Green	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3. Blue	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4. Cyan	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5. Brown	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6. Orange	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7. Violet	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8. Yellow	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9. Gray	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10. Light green	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11. Dark turquoise	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1. Light cyan	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

version two

Name	Official Number	Colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Red	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Green	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Blue	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Cyan	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Brown	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Orange	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Violet	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Yellow	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Gray	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Light green	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Dark turquoise	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Light cyan	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:						278.3 km	171

i am in favor of first version. Elk Salmon 10:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

take a look at butovskaya line article. i have added back infobox and coverted timeline to text. at least less tables now, but still too much, if looking on other lines. i think later this line map shold be replaced by some image. Again, may be, like have LUL lines Elk Salmon 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

THere was an edit conflict and presentely it is my version. As for tables and London Underground, there is no saying why London should be the example. This is my preffered version:

Name	Official № and colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

--Kuban Cossack 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, but your colors are too brindled Elk Salmon 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

... and I'd put №-column on the left — that's the usual way with tables. Also I'd follow lensovet's tacit advice and do away with this formed/opened dichotomy — it matters just for two lines out of 12, so adding a note or two would be better, imo. Like that: Насчет цветов, если просто скопировать их с официальной схемы ММ они будут не такими яркими, но зато заметно легче узнаваемыми:

# and colour on the map	Name	Cyrillics	Opened	Length	Stations
1	Sokolnicheskaya	Соко́льническая	1935	26.2 km	19
2	Zamoskvoretskaya	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	36.9 km	20
3	Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	22.6 km	13
4	Filyovskaya	Филёвская	1958*	18.5 km	14
5	Koltsevaya	Кольцева́я	1950	19.4 km	12
6	Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	37.6 km	24
7	Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	35.9 km	19
8	Kalininskaya	Кали́нинская	1979	13.1 km	7
9	Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	41.5 km	25
10	Lyublinskaya	Любли́нская	1995	17.6 km	10
11	Kakhovskaya	Кахо́вская	1995**	3.4 km	3
L1	Butovskaya	Бу́товская	2003	5.5 km	5
	Total:			278.3 km	171

• Although the Filyovskaya Line was opened in 1958, some of the older stations date to 1935/37 when … etc.

—Sascha. 13:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sascha. This is old disputed table. You didn't read my comments. Number of lines should not be in first column to avoid misunderstandings, title opened is incorrect in this way, colors are too bright, formatting itself very insensitive.

here KK updated version with softer colors

Name	Official number and colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

but myself i am in favor of naming colors. because different tints have different names.

so most compromisal version is

Name	Official Number	Colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Red	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Green	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Blue	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Cyan	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Brown	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Orange	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Violet	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Yellow	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Gray	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Light green	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Dark turquoise	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Light cyan	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:						278.3 km	171

Elk Salmon 14:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against naming colours, MM does not give a guide for colourblinds and this is not wikitravel also I agree that it is pointless for this dichteronomy, only two lines are affected. Finally my colour tints are much better as not only they are softer, but they have more distinction, particulary Filyovskaya/BLLM one. --Kuban Cossack 14:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Me to. Why name that, what for? It's redundant. As for the colors themselves my choice is simple — exactly the colors from the MM map would be best. They are not so bright but would be easier recognisable on the map and will help people to deal with it.

Numbers should be on the left, that's where they allways are, not on the right and not in the middle, that looks strange. And it will not confuse anybody who hasn't read this discussion :) And I also don't think that something should be changed on principle only, sometimes it's better not to mend what isn't broken.

And Elk: I do read your posts. That I disagree with them doesn't mean I don't read them :)

To emphasize that numbers and colors correspond to those on the map I'd put it in the heading, like that (I also changed my first table but placing it here one more time, for clarity):

# and colour on the map	Name	Cyrillics	Opened	Length	Stations
1	Sokolnicheskaya	Соко́льническая	1935	26.2 km	19
2	Zamoskvoretskaya	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	36.9 km	20
3	Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	22.6 km	13
4	Filyovskaya	Филёвская	1958*	18.5 km	14
5	Koltsevaya	Кольцева́я	1950	19.4 km	12
6	Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	37.6 km	24
7	Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	35.9 km	19
8	Kalininskaya	Кали́нинская	1979	13.1 km	7
9	Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	41.5 km	25
10	Lyublinskaya	Любли́нская	1995	17.6 km	10
11	Kakhovskaya	Кахо́вская	1995**	3.4 km	3
L1	Butovskaya	Бу́товская	2003	5.5 km	5
	Total:			278.3 km	171

—Sascha. 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

next colors picked up directly from official map. soft and most accurate. yet again you use old layout that very insensitive (old html3 borders, white background etc). also please not that numbers of lines are not index numbers, but official numbers on map. to avoid misunderstanding these should not be in first column. yet again word opened is incorrect in this way. it simply tell not true.

here is new layout - without color names, normal formatting, numbers and colors in second column and without any № or #.

Name	Official Number and Colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Соко́льническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворе́цкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арба́тско-Покро́вская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцева́я	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калу́жско-Ри́жская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Тага́нско-Краснопре́сненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Кали́нинская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпухо́вско-Тимиря́зевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Любли́нская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Кахо́вская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бу́товская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

Elk Salmon 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk, I measured the colors in the Photoshop and matched them exactly to those on the map. But you know what — yours are better still and I'd take them over mines anytime. I also don't insist on black borders and white background. Your borders and backgrounds are way better and I agree to them entirely.

And now for the bad news :) two, actually:

• first, the numbers just should be in the leftmost column, otherwise the table would look, well, unnatural. What misunderstanding could there possibly be? Someone not getting that 2 on the green background is the same 2 as by the green line on the map? Should you ever encounter such a person send him over to me — I'll buy him a beer. Seriously, I'd love to, just for the pleasure of meeting a complete innocent :)) Also, take that table in the russian wiki article: they have numbers on the left and no one seems to be misguided.
• second, the stations/lines thing — I don't see why there should be a second column exactly duplicating the first one but for the two numbers. It would just make the table less clear, less concise and less professionally-looking.

But like I said, apart from those two points your last variant is great and I agree to it. —Sascha. 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I would recommend to get rid of the accents. They are useful and necessary in corresponding articles, but unless the article does not exist, they are quite redundant in a table like this one.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Accents means absolutely nothing for people who are not able to read cyrillics.

1. Sascha. As i said these are not index number, therefore should not be in leftmost column. Second reason - making them in first column makes numbers prioritised to other recognition symbols, like name and color. It is light metro/light rail case.

2. If you about row index number so it's not making table less professional. But directly back. If you about years of formation and opening, so there are not exactly duplication and have two completely different meanings.

a final proposal

Name	Official Number and Colour	Cyrillic Name	Formation year	First section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Сокольническая	1935	1935	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворецкая	1938	1938	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	1938	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцевая	1950	1950	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1958	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1966	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Калининская	1979	1979	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	1983	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Люблинская	1995	1995	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Каховская	1995**	1969**	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бутовская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

Elk Salmon 00:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

good to see this finally resolve itself. I agree on the accents, they only made it look strange. Elk, as for "formation year", I would just call it "Line completion" and explain below the table that some lines were not opened all at once, but in segments, and that more info can be found on the line's article. cheers! let's unprotect. lensovet 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Line completion means that all figures will be 19xx or 200x. This is not exactly what tell current columns. Elk Salmon 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

elk will you listen to me? I'm telling you which makes more sense as a translation. I have lived in an English-speaking country for 10 years, and people I talk to have no idea that I'm a foreigner. Do you really want to argue vocabulary? I didn't say to change the dates. I said we need to change the column title and possibly add a note after the table explaining the title. "Formation date" simply does NOT make sense in this context. lensovet 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

About indexes: I've just looked up all the MM articles in different languages: every one (that has this table, of course) puts indexes-column on the left. Russian, German, Chineese, Japaneese — every single one of them. And that is also what MM itself does on its maps (on hard copies), in the legend section: they list index/color/name, in that order. Why reinvent the wheel?

Same goes for the first-stations-column — none of the tables features it, though some do add another columns, for traveltime mainly.

So I'd still vote for lensovet's proposal: taking the table from ru:Московский метрополитен, adding another column for the transliterated versions and leaving the rest like it is. Combining of course with Elk's soft, natural colors, fine borders and subtle backgrounds. And this combination of Elk's and lensovet's ideas could look then like that:

No. and color	Name	Cyrillic Name	Line completion	Newest station added	Length	Stations
1	Sokolnicheskaya	Сокольническая	1935	1990	26.2 km	19
2	Zamoskvoretskaya	Замоскворецкая	1938	1985	36.9 km	20
3	Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	2003	22.6 km	13
4	Filyovskaya	Филёвская	1958*	2005	18.5 km	14
5	Koltsevaya	Кольцевая	1950	1954	19.4 km	12
6	Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1990	37.6 km	24
7	Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1975	35.9 km	19
8	Kalininskaya	Калининская	1979	1986	13.1 km	7
9	Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	2002	41.5 km	25
10	Lyublinskaya	Люблинская	1995	1999	17.6 km	10
11	Kakhovskaya	Каховская	1995**	1969	3.4 km	3
L1	Butovskaya	Бутовская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171
* 4 central stations of Filyovskaya Line – Komintern, Arbatskaya, Smolenskaya and Kievskaya – were originally opened in 1935/37, when they were a branch of Sokolnicheskaya Line. Between 1938 and 1953, they were part of Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line. The stations were closed between 1953 and 1958 and then reopened as part of the (new) Filyovskaya Line. ** All 3 stations of the Kakhovskaya Line were built in 1969; initially, they were an integral part of the Zamoskovoretskaya Line until 1983, becoming a branch of it until 1995. In 1995, they were split off from the Zamoskovoretskaya Line and used to form the Kakhovskaya Line.

--Sascha. 07:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sasha, that looks great. I've made some minor corrections so take a look, they were mostly typos. lensovet 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Someone just made an edit to this talk page asking for unprotection. However, when it comes to my view of the table:

1. I oppose having the official numbers on the far left column per Elk Salmon.
2. I am on neither side of the 12/L1 thing.
3. I support including color names. Including color pictures but not color names in a table like this sounds too much like this encyclopedia is 99.5% English and 0.5% picture-language (a language with pictures only and no words.)
4. I absolutely 100% support that if the table says "L1" only, there must be an HTML comment about the reason there should be no 12.

Georgia guy 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not quite getting this — Elk Salmon is not proposing putting the numbers on the left?
2. .
3. Again, I'm not quite with you — this argument about pictures and no words? This article is not on the color names in English but on MM, and MM does not define or spell out color names (not even in Russian) nowhere. It also would have little practical value — knowing the "exact" naming of the color for the say Line#11 is not going to help the rider (or reader) to identify that line on the map, and that is the sole raison d'être for those colors.
4. Seconded. I think it should be done in a short comment on the nature of this "M-lite", explaining that (and possibly also why) MM has started a separate designation line here. Cause as the rules seem to go today there going to be both lines 12 and L2 in the future. We even may be witnessing emergence of an M2 some day, who knows? --Sascha. 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok people I am back from Crimea (after Nato left) and now am back in discussion. Now, the page was locked to stop the edit war. Now that we discussed it at length I think the compromise has been reached. Now WRT to colours I think let's use the shades that are previously used as they have to be quite contrasting. The official version that was copypasted from official maps is alright (in particular the LDL and the ring are more suitable, as is the Kalilinka shade of yellow). However I think that Kakhovka and Filyovka have to be more separable. Finally let's use № istead of #. In any case I do not want the shade of colours to be a new edit war. --Kuban Cossack 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Those are not index numbers, but just numbers. That's why. And because putting them to first column makes them as primal identification. It is adding misunderstandings. This is why dispute was started. Making them after name in background of color we can reduce misunderstandings. For many people who know Madrid and Barcelona systems first column will be like 11 metro lines and 1 light rail line. While moving numbers to second column will make it 12 metro lines with some different numbers. Table is first thing that people looking on and some people does not even bother to read comments. So misunderstanding should be reduced.

2. if we going to apply second column for numbers, this question will disappear.

3. Still. There are commonly known name colors. Even article says that most of people refer to lines by color. And it is true. Most of people does not know names and numbers. But this is not so necessary question. We can drop it.

4. A paragraph with explanation that light metro is metro should be for sure.

5. Completion is not correct again. Completion = date of last opened station. And explain me please then - why should be last station added and shouldn't be first station added? but idea is very good itself. very informative.

6. and please no any # or №, but just word number. these symbols makes header cell looks very empty and very unprofessional...

Name	Official Number and Colour	Cyrillic Name	Line established	First section opened	Last section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Сокольническая	1935	1935	1990	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворецкая	1938	1938	1985	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	1938	2003	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	2005	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцевая	1950	1950	1954	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1958	1990	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1966	1975	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Калининская	1979	1979	1986	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	1983	2002	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Люблинская	1995	1995	1999	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Каховская	1995**	1969**	1969	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бутовская	2003	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:						278.3 km	171

Elk Salmon 09:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kuban Cossack, as you see we are not quite reached a compromise yet. NATO was easier to negotiate :)

Sign # it must not be, we can also write No. As for № I think it's more frequent in Russian than in English.

Elk, you are asking why have the "last station"-column but not the "first station"? Because new station are routinely added after opening of a line. No line but one has remained "unadded to", and for that one, BL, there simply hasn't been enough time, it's too new. Contrary to that, old stations being used to form a new line is a rare exception, and therefore best dealt with in a note.

But this "first station"-column (unnecessary it may be) is nowhere near as objectionable as putting the numbers-column in the middle, between English and Cyrillic ones. Elk, look — no one is doing it, not a single article on Moscow Metro in Wikipedia. Why be an odd man out? --Sascha. 10:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment. I have explained why. Elk Salmon 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz, stop repeating that I do not read your comments — I do read them. They are sometimes difficult to understand but I try. And sometimes I fail:
Those are not index numbers, but just numbers doesn't explain much. They are not, so what?
…putting them to first column makes them as primal identification — beautiful, that's what they are for, that's the reason why everyone puts them in the leftmost column in the first place.

What you are in fact implying is that every article on MM in Wikipedia and MM itself (they also put those number/indexes/whatchamacallits before the line's names, not after and not in the middle) they are all marching out of step, isn't it? Maybe you too should try to understand the others logic?--Sascha. 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll repost explanation.

It is adding misunderstandings. That is why dispute was started. Making them after name in background of color we can reduce misunderstandings. For many people who know Madrid and Barcelona systems first column will be like 11 metro lines and 1 light rail line. While moving numbers to second column will make it 12 metro lines with some different numbers. Table is first thing that people looking on and some people does not even bother to read comments. So misunderstanding should be reduced.Elk Salmon 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk, just out of curiosity, where are you getting this "many people who know Madrid and Barcelona systems"? Since when did Spain become the "standard" for Metro fans? How about this, the New York City metro uses both numbers and letters, and what's more, nearly every line (I don't feel like doing the research, but I can tell you - lines in Brooklyn and Bronx are almost exclusively above ground) is what Moscow calls "light". So? Come on man, you can let this one go. If people are idiots, well, let them be. It's not our job to try to cater to them. lensovet 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mardid has light rail system called light metro. This is misunderstandings of terms. Simply again. Be it is index number (therefore with number 12 near butovskaya line as ru wiki say - Butovskaya is 12th line of Moscow metro). But those are not index numbers and not primary indetification. Most widespread usage is by name and color. Nobody refer to lines by number. Therefore there is no necessary to put official number to first column. Plus making it in second makes it less exceptionable in term of letter L, that relates to light type. Is it understandable now?Elk Salmon 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Madrid Metro Table

Elk, I've just looked up what layout they use in the Madrid Metro article for the "main table" (lines 2 to 10 are omitted ):

Line		Length	Stations	Section	Platform
1	Plaza de Castilla – Congosto	16.7 km	27	narrow	90 m
11	Plaza Elíptica – Pan Bendito	2.3 km	3	wide	115 m
12	MetroSur	40.6 km (circular)	27	wide	115 m
R *	Ópera – Príncipe Pío	1.1 km	2	narrow	60 m

Notes:
* For Ramal, "branch"

---

See — they too put those indexes/numbers on the leftmost (note that they even align them to the left which is of course to much of a good thing :-) ) and when one line has differing designation they make a note. Sounds reasonable. Lets do the same:

No. and colour	Name	Cyrillic Name	Line completion	Newest station added	Length	Stations
1	Sokolnicheskaya	Сокольническая	1935	1990	26.2 km	19
2	Zamoskvoretskaya	Замоскворецкая	1938	1985	36.9 km	20
3	Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	2003	22.6 km	13
4	Filyovskaya	Филёвская	1958 1	2005	18.5 km	14
5	Koltsevaya	Кольцевая	1950	1954	19.4 km	12
6	Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1990	37.6 km	24
7	Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1975	35.9 km	19
8	Kalininskaya	Калининская	1979	1986	13.1 km	7
9	Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	2002	41.5 km	25
10	Lyublinskaya	Люблинская	1995	1999	17.6 km	10
11	Kakhovskaya	Каховская	1995 2	1969	3.4 km	3
L1*	Butovskaya	Бутовская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171
* L does not stand for "light rail" but, somewhat confusingly, for "Light Metro" — metro lines that are elevated and do not need expensive tunelling (therefore being financially "light"). However, they use the same gauge and rolling stock as "normal" metro lines. 1 – 4 central stations of Filyovskaya Line – Komintern, Arbatskaya, Smolenskaya and Kievskaya – were originally opened in 1935/37, when they were a branch of Sokolnicheskaya Line. Between 1938 and 1953, they were part of Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line. The stations were closed between 1953 and 1958 and then reopened as part of the (new) Filyovskaya Line. 2 – All 3 stations of the Kakhovskaya Line were built in 1969; initially, they were an integral part of the Zamoskovoretskaya Line until 1983, becoming a branch of it until 1995. In 1995, they were split off from the Zamoskovoretskaya Line and used to form the Kakhovskaya Line.

Please, Elk, be reasonable, please, pretty please... --Sascha. 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reasonable. They have no misunderstandings with R letter and this is branch. And they have platform length column. This column reduce misunderstanding.

From urban rail "Light Metro" (Metro ligero) lines will be similar to modern-type light rail lines. This is not applyes for Moscow. In Moscow Light Metro is usually heavy rail.

minuses of your table

1. No instead of Number

2. Because of light metro Numbers should not be in first column

3. Stress should be on line names and color, because of these indentifications are most popular, while numbers are unpopular

4. Completion is incorrect. This is not date of completion

5. No first opened stage column, what is important - this is date of begin of line

6. Color column should be wide as it is now, but starting table from wide color column is very negative for an eye

Elk Salmon 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1. No. is more universal and eye-pleasing than "#".

4. Completion is correct. Please listen to a native speaker and stop arguing. Obviously there is always expansion and completion date of which you speak should be "undetermined". This is totally illogical.

6. only two lines have different "first opened stage" and "completion" dates. it makes no sense to create a new column for two out of 12 rows.

I'm going to make some changes to the table again, for clarity. lensovet 02:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Madrid Metro Table
Well in essence the original table was very close to that, ok it did not have the gauge or platform length as these are station specific in Moscow, but it has the same layout. The question is why change? Why do we have to follow Madrid's example and can't make our own ones? --Kuban Cossack 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I was not proposing to copy the Madrid Metro table, just illustrating that even in the table on Madrid (so much talked about on these pages) they still put numbers on the left, where they belong. And where they were in English Moscow Metro article, and where they are in every article on Moscow Metro. The table I'm proposing is the one below the Madrid example.

I also took the liberty to move your comment from in the middle of mine to the end of the discussion. I hope you don't mind — it's easier to follow and answer that way. А то рулон уже довольно длинный ;) --Sascha. 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by the NYT

as one of the "trouble spot" articles, protected from editing: "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy" and "Trouble Spots".

Maybe we should have a poll to finally end this unhappy state? I mean, two rather distinctive variants of the table in question have taken shape:

1. a table proposed by Elk and
2. a table as it is in the ru.article + translit-column + "L1 the Light Metro"-note

We would then accept the one that has more support. And now as the article has been mentioned in the NYT that way there may even be more interest then the last poll round.--Sascha. 09:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Or just return everything the way it was prior to Elk pushing his own opinion. IMO, that is much more suitable. --Kuban Cossack 10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are essentially the same (I mean the original table and #2), plus a clarifying remark on the "Lite Metro" (that was also there anyway).

And new colors that Elk proposed, they are good imo. Matching those on the map, they are instantly recognizable as "the Lines". Believe a person who is using MM on a daily basis — you don't get the same feel with the artificially clean, "neon" colors. So it's a worthy improvement and at least something good will come out of all this..., well, of all this ;) --Sascha. 12:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to discussion. I'll again repeat reasons of why old table should go away (in ru wiki as well. i'm just not going to replace it until new table is settled here). so

1. Names should be primal identification as it is officially (MM refers to lines primary by names).

Can't respond to this; not a Moscow resident.

Then what is the question? Move name to primary, because it's primary identification for MM. Plus it's automatically resolve question 3.Elk Salmon 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Question was yours, status quo is not a "question".

2. Cells with colored background should bot be putted in first column.

Why not?

Because colored first column is not pleasant for an eye. And because it is unusual. Elk Salmon 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

well, maybe for your eye it is. For mine it's the other way around. Find me more people that think that it's the way you say it is.

Also it is definitely not unusual. It IS the usual way, apart from numerous articles on Moscow (and not only) Metro, MM itself is using this order on it's maps:

In this way - then why not to use numbers from official report, expect of unofficial maps. All maps that you see in trains are not official and was made not by Metro Metro, but by Metroreclama. I tell again. Colored first column is not usual, it is also uncommon and unpleasant for an eye. Elk Salmon 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

--Sascha. 00:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Because of L1 misunderstandings dispute column with numbers (which are not index number what are usually, R is not really line in madrid).

The L1 dispute is done. We put a note in our table explaining what the L stands for. You insist on removing the note and saying that it was part of the original table - no it wasn't, scroll up to see for yourself.

Not done. A note is exist even now. But small reference somewhere outside of cells is not what people looking on. It should be visible from the table that Butovskaya is usual metro line. Elk Salmon 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I put the note in the damn table, and you took it out! It was in the cells, and you said, oh no, we already have it. No we don't.

Remind you once again. We have this description before dispute. Nobody deleted it and nobody going to request its removal. Talk is about priority of columns as priority of identifications. Mosmetro always use names as only identification. Numbers are not in usage at all. Colors are in usage by many of passengers. If we follow MM - dispute will gone as unexistent. Elk Salmon 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Overall design of old article simply not really pleasant for an eye.

We're not talking about the overall design right now. We're talking about this specific damn table.

5. There are should be columns on all three dates. Date of line formation, date of first opened stage and date of lastest opened stage. This is important quick info for this table. Elk Salmon 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to create a separate column for 2 (or was it 3? doesn't matter...) out of the 12 rows. [User:Lensovet|lensovet]] 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed necessary for this. Much easier to look on cells in the table than digging some numbers in the footnote. Elk Salmon 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Much easier to NOT have an extra column which only causes confusion. Seriously, it took me a few seconds to realize that one column was different from the one next to it for just two lines! That only diffuses its purpose, because I'm bound to just ignore it and not try to figure out its meaning. Come on. lensovet 23:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reject to discuss it. It's not so important for me as Identification dispute. Elk Salmon 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

here is example of this misunderstandings. [14]. logo of light metro listed as logo of light rails of moscow. Elk Salmon 15:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

so what? the table proposed by sasha has footnotes to eliminate this misunderstanding. enough. i'm going to put a poll up and post it on the village pump. lensovet 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

footnotes are exist even now as well. but it is not solving the problem. number of line is still first what people looking for and they don't bother to keep reading what is next. Elk Salmon 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Have not found any misunderstandings on mic-ro.com, Light Metro logo listed as Moscow (light metro). Problem solved?--Sascha. 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mike, the guy who wrote that site, saw our discussion and changed it. It was wrong earlier, but it's correct now. Perhaps that NYT article did us some good. ;) lensovet 06:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just contacted him and he changed it. But he even could not notice it if not my pm him. Elk Salmon 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of line names into English

The line names all end in "skaya", from which I can conclude that "skaya" must be Russian for "subway line". Any English translations of all 12 line names into English??

No. "-ск-"/"-sk-" is one of Slavic affixes for deriving adjectives. "-ая"/"-aya" ("-яя"/"-yaya") is the ending of adjectives put in fem. Nom. (The Russian words "линия" for "line" and "станция" for "station" are both feminine).

E. g. "Sokolnicheskaya" is adjective derived from "Sokolniki" which is the name of a large park in the North-East of Moscow.

Final poll

Here we go. Up for voting are two different tables.

Tables

Number 1:

Name	Official Number and Colour	Cyrillic Name	Line established	First section opened	Last section opened	Length	Stations
Sokolnicheskaya	1	Сокольническая	1935	1935	1990	26.2 km	19
Zamoskvoretskaya	2	Замоскворецкая	1938	1938	1985	36.9 km	20
Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	3	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	1938	2003	22.6 km	13
Filyovskaya	4	Филёвская	1958*	1935*	2005	18.5 km	14
Koltsevaya	5	Кольцевая	1950	1950	1954	19.4 km	12
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	6	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1958	1990	37.6 km	24
Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	7	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1966	1975	35.9 km	19
Kalininskaya	8	Калининская	1979	1979	1986	13.1 km	7
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	9	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	1983	2002	41.5 km	25
Lyublinskaya	10	Люблинская	1995	1995	1999	17.6 km	10
Kakhovskaya	11	Каховская	1995**	1969**	1969	3.4 km	3
Butovskaya	L1	Бутовская	2003	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:						278.3 km	171

Number 2:

No. and colour	Name	Cyrillic Name	Line completion	Newest station added	Length	Stations
1	Sokolnicheskaya	Сокольническая	1935	1990	26.2 km	19
2	Zamoskvoretskaya	Замоскворецкая	1938	1985	36.9 km	20
3	Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya	Арбатско-Покровская	1938	2003	22.6 km	13
4	Filyovskaya	Филёвская	1958 1	2005	18.5 km	14
5	Koltsevaya	Кольцевая	1950	1954	19.4 km	12
6	Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya	Калужско-Рижская	1958	1990	37.6 km	24
7	Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya	Таганско-Краснопресненская	1966	1975	35.9 km	19
8	Kalininskaya	Калининская	1979	1986	13.1 km	7
9	Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya	Серпуховско-Тимирязевская	1983	2002	41.5 km	25
10	Lyublinskaya	Люблинская	1995	1999	17.6 km	10
11	Kakhovskaya	Каховская	1995 2	1969	3.4 km	3
L1*	Butovskaya	Бутовская	2003	2003	5.5 km	5
Total:					278.3 km	171

Please, below this line, sign your name and which table you believe should go in the article.

---

I don't think you should show the tables in this talk page. I think you should just describe the tables in words. Georgia guy 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the humor, but no. We're trying to decide which table looks better and presents the info in an easier-to-read fashion. I'd appreciate it if you just voted in the poll. thanks. lensovet 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best just for all Wikipedians who have been participating in this discussion to write what they think the most logical version of the table is at User:Wikipedian name/Moscow Metro Lines table. Georgia guy 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough I agree with you, why not do a sb, and then put a screenshot in a thumb. Much more clear than going through endless lists. --Kuban Cossack 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

how long will you just ignore what i am saying without any comments. we are not came to the poll time and we are not discussing what table looks better designed. we discussing what table is technically more correct. and we have problem with light metro, which is not solving by returning to original table. Elk Salmon 19:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk Salmon, please clarify who you are referring to as "you" in this discussion. Georgia guy 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to respond to your comments because i've already responded to them and you refuse to listen. same as kuban kazak, btw. you guys should be friends. lensovet 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Georgia guy, origianlly it was under lensovet comment, so it was refered to him.

lensovet, i have posted 5 reasons why old table should be reorganised. all you doing is repeating that there is old table should be and describe old table conception. can you finally respond by those 5 reasons? i have removed description once again. it's not point of discussion. it's exist now and is not proposed to be removed or rewrited. Elk Salmon 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk, you have stated your opinion several times as has everyone else in this discussion, so I think it's no use just continue repeating same points over and over again. Everyone seem to know the position of everyone else already. We should just have a poll to establish which version have more support and accept that version. I'm just reorganizing the poll form slightly, along the lines of the first poll. Sascha.

And what's your point? We are returning at begin of discussion. You just reject an existence of dispute and constantly repeating that old table should return without listening to reasons why it should not... Elk Salmon 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is precisely that: we should stop discussing it in circles, everyone knows the reasons and arguments of everyone else already, they have been repeated and even copypasted over and over again. We should just have a poll and take the variant that has more support — that's exactly what you yourself have proposed, haven't you?. So let's have a poll and get it over with and move on.

And note — I am not rejecting the existence of dispute, how could I — the article is blocked so there definitely is a dispute. And I also read/listen to your reasons, I just don't agree with them, don't find them convincing. That's why I back the other variant. As simple as that. --Sascha. 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An ignoring of dispute will lead to nowhere as well as a poll. Article will not be unblocked until we come to consensus, because only consensus will lead to end of edit wars.

And yes - i do consider it as ignoring. Yet again - because i don't see any comments on my posted reasons. Just only I disagree Elk Salmon 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Elk — your reasons have been posted, and answered, many times already, over and over again. I do not see much sense in repeating "the argumentation rounds" in circles.

You have proposed a poll on which one of the two tables "should go in the article" and now you are saying this poll "will lead to nowhere". Does that mean you are not going to respect it's results? Well, then the poll will definitely lead nowhere, I'm afraid ;)

About consensus: consensus is fine, but it is also about being able to make compromises. "Everyone should just agree with me otherwise the article will not be unlocked" — that would be a bad idea of consensus, imo.--Sascha. 11:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting for:

table #1

1. Elk Salmon
2. I think if ppl goes to search more a line by name than for number, then #1 must be used. Aokromes 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

table #2

1. lensovet 18:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC) - #2
2. Sascha. 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Kuban Cossack 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC), with additional fixes on some of the colour shades (to make fore contrasting, I am not saying to chose all of the presentely used ones btw.
4. Ns1987 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)*
5. Avala 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
6. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Schwael 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Both list info in the same order, but this one is more compact. Frankly, I don't see a big difference.

---

* This was the first edit in 4 days; and I want to know what we're waiting for. This appears to be one of the biggest discussions. Also, I have to say that unlike the other voters, the voter who this comment is a response to the vote of never was involved in the above conversation. Georgia guy 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

what we're waiting for — and what in your opinion shall we be doing? Also, your post in this section — is it just a comment of was it supposed to be a vote for one of the variants of the table (as may be indicated by the # sign preceding it)?--Sascha. 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment; the #: was to indicate a response to the # above it. Georgia guy 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As for what we're waiting for part — I think we are waiting for the lone supporter of the variant #1 to state whether he is going to respect the results of the poll he announced or not.--Sascha. 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Can Elk explain this revert which IMO is now vandalism as it goes directely against the consensus above. --Kuban Cossack 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As I get it the result of the vote was to put the table#2 in the article so I'm doing exactly this, what has been voted and agreed upon (with no one voting against it btw). Some variations on the colors shades of some lines were expected, but not the sudden change of the table as a whole--Sascha. 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are right about vandalism — seems to be the right word for what we are dealing with now. It is sad to see how easily one person can in fact take a whole article hostage;)--Sascha. 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall we file an Rfc on user conduct? --Kuban Cossack 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cossack. It is you who trying to revert original table before consensus is reached. Article was unprotected simply because it was too long on protection. If you keep reverting it - it will be protected again. Please don't go overboard and hold yourself. Elk Salmon 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No Elk, Sasha put in the new table, you reverted it to your one for which no cosensus was reached. I did the sensible and returned the original pre-conflict version. However i have reverted to Sasha the 2nd time as it was the version that I do not mind. You are the one who is continuing to conflict in a debate which you refuse to accept that you lost. --Kuban Cossack 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So even if people will try to put a statement in Bush article that he is black and will collect 100 votes against your one - you will accept that 'you lost'...:/ Cossack. This table is incorrect and bordering with OR. So follow discussion until we finally find the way out. btw, look at Consensus;) Elk Salmon 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make yourself a sockpuppet of Novodvorskaya. The "I'm the only one who is right" approach is certainly not Good faith or NPOV for that matter. As you have a mountain to climb revert warring is certainly not going to get anywhere. I propose we return either to the agreed version of table 2. Or we return to the original version that lasted for quite a few months without anybody objecting, whilst you continue to give your "alternative ideas", but limit them to talk page. --Kuban Cossack 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Useless talk. Read the talk please once again. Fully. It's about ideas to table. Tables was proposing to show ideas. And I still see. The consensus for columns 1 and 2 was not reached. At least Me, Aokromes and Georgia guy was for numbers in second column. At least Sasha and lensovet for numbers in first column. Elk Salmon 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sasha it's not a place for voting here. We are not inventing something. We are not disputing some settled facts or etc. I'll start new talk section to accumulate discussion. Previous now is too big. Elk Salmon 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk, the consensus clearly is here as you, so far, are the only dissenter. Please accept that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)01:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached. Elk Salmon 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your idea of consensus seems to be: it's when every one agrees with me, so long as not everyone agrees with me there is no consensus :) Elk — you had an idea but it was not supported, is it so hard to accept that simple fact of life?--Sascha. 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do not accept when people is hiding under unreleated rules and rejecting any discussion of significant problem, when tones of questions left unanswered. And where the main answer, hiding under useless poll (when just 5 people involved in discussion and votes gone as 2 againt 3 and where administrator absolutely correctly said to find a consensus), is i want it's going be be so, because i want.Elk Salmon 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

MMTS fully operational?

Full operation is planned to start on July 1 2006.

Is it or is it not in "full operation" now? Where does it come from anyway? Source or something?--Sascha. 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

no. still not. Elk Salmon 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking to revert it completely to talk state. But then started editing ohter paragraphes. As of monorail - someone on Transport in Russia forum chacked if they switched to full operation service somewhere few days ago. But people on workers on monorail said they even didn't heard anything about full operation service. So they still working in excursion mode until about 21:00. Elk Salmon 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what was the source of that date (July 1 2006)? I have not found it anywhere. The closest match that I was able to find was some reference to some remark by some MMTS CEO that they will (can?) start operating in a regular transportation mode in a second half of 2006. But it was so vague and uncertain that it was just "hot air" for any practical reason.

As I'm getting from Wikipedia article(s) they need 10 trains to open a full service, and they currently have just 2. Werther they are going to invest in procuring 8 more trains for a line that serves no known purpose and promises no financial returns, is anybody's guess. My personal, highly subjective, "educated" guess is that everyone interested in taking a ride on the world's only P30 Intamin monorail should not postpone it for too long;)--Sascha. 11:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

quick 1 sec search on news.yandex.ru. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc etc etc etc. However all of them says - July 2006. Not 1 July 2006. Elk Salmon 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean — tons of talk, 1 July 2006 mentioned nowhere. I hope now, on the July, 15th you see what this kind of information from "1 sec search on news.yandex.ru" is worth--Sascha. 16:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Number or alphanumeric name

It says that each line has a number, a name, and a color. However, 11 of the lines have numbers and one has an alphanumeric name. Anything to replace the word "number"?? Georgia guy 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think number is ok, it can include alphanumeric characters — look for example at VIN (Vehicle identification number)--Sascha. 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistency of identifications

So. To accumulate what we reached on all talk above. Better to keep talking in new, srtuctured from 0, section. It will be easier.

So what we reach in talk? As I said, i'll try to go from another side, consistency of identifications, to drop useless and endless talk on what looks better. So. You posted a shot of the map of Moscow Metro from the train. As I said - this map is made by Metroreklama, not exactly by Mosmetro. So. If you go to official site - everywhere lines are represented by names. If you go to metro - all announcements are in names, unlike in Saint Petersburg metro for example (there are numbers in announcements). If you look on official Mosocw Government documents - there are name. If you take a look at Official Annual Reports - there are also lines represented by name. In 2005 report they even droped index numbers from tables. Numbers are exist only on maps. And really almost nobody use numbers. So I also think we should update whole article by switching numbers to names. Because it's common. Somehow, btw, numbers as primary identification in the article and table could be considered an original research... So at first I would like to hear comments. At second i'll say - names are primary identification and only type of identification for Moscow Metro officials.

As of talk with L1. Putting consistency of identifications will drop this question. Because all 12 lines will be even in table by first column. Elk Salmon 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk we reached in the talk that numbers and designations should remain. Common sense of the user is what is important here. The user can see there are twelve lines and one is called L1. Would that not want him to read the article where it is clearely explained why it is called such? --Kuban Cossack 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeat. Table #2 is Original Research. Elk Salmon 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something. How is table two original research? The two don't seem significantly different to me (the items are re-ordered, there's a footnote, and one of the columns is missing). -- tariqabjotu (joturner)03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't talk about footnote (identically exist in both versions) and other columns (not a point of current discussion) now. The talk is about consistency of column 1 and column 2. Elk Salmon 09:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk have a look at WP:FAITH and WP:POINT what you are doint is a stubborn push of your POV into the article. Table two is a spin off after pronlonged discussion about the issue. If you can't accept the community's opinion then you have two options. After I revert to the original pre-edit war version, you either file a mediation or revert. The latter action will have me submit an RfC on user conduct. Wikipedia suffers enough disruption as it is, and you made your point very clear that you are not willing to accept the majority opinion. Mediation or RfC is the only two options left and your action on wether to revert is going to be the answer. --Kuban Cossack 10:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

better to stop useless intimidating and join normally to discussion. Elk Salmon 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I left table itself left as #2 version, but I have reverted priority of columns. Discussion still ongoing. 3 for to 2 against is not a consensus. Elk Salmon 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly "priority of columns" was one of the major points in the discussion, and it was voted upon. Also, the vote stayed 6 to 2, not 3 to 2--Sascha. 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It was about poll about which columns should be included. That's how most of people voted it for. As of priority of columns - Me, Aokromes, Georgia guy said for MM priority. Only you clearly stated against it. Elk Salmon 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just have a look at the tables #1 and #2 as you yourself proposed them for voting. That was what people who cared to vote voted for.

Elk, frankly — what is the real reason behind you seemingly being bent on keeping this table (or article) a sore point? Could that be that you are trying to "get even" for the harsh words you've heard on some other of your edits (that you mentioned in this discussion)? If so then, firstly, it is imo not a good way to do so, and secondly, you are more then even already.--Sascha. 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I repeat again. Stop hiding under threats. Second table is already on MM page. Its consistence is under discussion. Elk Salmon 10:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk, who are you trying to fool? "It is #2, I just changed it to be like #1, but it is still #2 ok". Childish.

And, apart from this, you made a number of other strange edits (to the table), which you are still to bring up the reasons for on the MM talk page.--Sascha. 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) the above 2 postings were moved in here from Elk Salmon's talk page

table number #1 consist of names, numbers, colors, dates of first and lastest added sections and date of establishing of the line, route length, number of station. table #2 consist of names, numbers, colors, date of establishing of line, date of lastest section added, route length and number of stations. #2 is what currently on the MM page, per poll - other columns are droped. Elk Salmon 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk, that's pathetic;) The question whether indexes-and-colors column should be the first one (as in all the other MM articles) or put somewhere it the middle of the names columns, this question was and is central for the difference between #1 and #2 tables.--Sascha. 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

someone care to explain what table is currently in the article? it is neither table 1 nor table 2. please explain, it looks horrible. lensovet 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Description: The table that it had before the L1/12 discussion above. Georgia guy 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so we've killed a couple of weeks to ... keep the old table. Amazing. lensovet 02:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

…and it's not even over yet ;)--Sascha. 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What color are L1 an M1?

L1 and M1 seem not to have one color as "normal" MM lines have. They are represented in two-color scheme on the map, L1 with added white and M1 with added dark line. Should that be taken in account somehow?--Sascha. 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

colors are dark and light cyan. Elk Salmon 09:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New lines to the same table now

Elk, that new "Metro lines" line IN the table is unnecessary, cause the whole table is titled "Metro lines". That's repetition. 'Totals' line for the monorail is also unnecessary — with only one monorail line there is nothing to add up. Those extra lines just clog the table making it less readable, without bringing in any substance. We can always ad a 'second total' line when there is more then one monorail line in operation. Finally, M1 is not a name of the Moscow Monorail. It's an index, like 1, 5 or L1, not name, most obviously. I won't revert your new edits first cause maybe you'll be able to convince people that it's a worthy idea(s) and build the consensus? Or at least a majority?--Sascha. 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

there should be consistent data in the table. if we have header for monorail lines, then should be for metro lines as well. if we have total row for metro, then it should be for monorail as well, no matter if it is currently one. just simply consistent data. Elk Salmon 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's overformalistic. If we summed up numbers on 12 rail metro lines does not say we have to sum up the number on a single monorail line. It is not a tax report or something, it should be readable.

Same for the double "metro lines": monorail line was not meant to be a part of the table as such but a kind of an appendix, the table itself is on metro lines as indicated by the heading. In fact it could be better to remove this MMTS-line at all, if it causing disputes and clogs the table. Just adding the length and the number of stations to the monorail-note would suffice. It ain't even in (full) operation yet :) That will also solve that "tripple-M1" thing nicely. And when MMTS starts a regular passenger service we can put it back on the table. --Sascha. 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the total column for the monorail seems quite silly. It ought to be removed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)16:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Elk, please explain how the hell table 2 is original research. lensovet 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

please read my comments on talk page. i have explained why names should be primal and why otherwise is close to original research. Elk Salmon 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so Somehow, btw, numbers as primary identification in the article and table could be considered an original research..., you think I'm just going to swallow that from you? Who are you kidding? Sorry man, but I'm not just going to take your word like that. This is a table. The order of columns in a table is not original research. What's more, synthesizing conclusions from published research is not original research. Original research would be if I said, These route numbers are unique to each county, and are typically assigned to more local routes than the statewide 500-series county route system. In the counties that use 600-series numbers, the selection of this range was coordinated within the state... [25]. See? That's original research.

I'm also looking at http://mosmetro.ru/flash/scheme01.html and I see numbers. I also see the words ОФИЦИАЛЬНЫЙ САЙТ МОСКОВСКОГО МЕТРОПОЛИТЕНА on this map. So... lensovet 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

repost

If you go to official site - everywhere lines are represented by names. If you go to metro - all announcements are in names, unlike in Saint Petersburg metro for example (there are numbers in announcements). If you look on official Mosocw Government documents - there are name. If you take a look at Official Annual Reports - there are also lines represented by name. In 2005 report they even droped index numbers from tables. Numbers are exist only on maps, which is relates to Metroreklama, not to Moscow Metro and does not even in rare usage. Nobody use numbers. So I also think we should update whole article by switching numbers to names. Because it's common. Elk Salmon 09:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite pathetic; this certainly has earned a place as one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars ever. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)05:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, lamest edit wars ever is your constant aspire to punish people because they disagree. You came to another world and started dictating own standards for Moscow related articles. And started interfering to the work of Russia Portal community, when even not from Russia and hardly even know much at your age. Elk Salmon 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that a punishment? Since, as you claim, you're not revert warring, I couldn't possibly be talking about you. And please agree (or if you so desire, disagree) with the request for mediation on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro. This is not punishment, but instead an attempt to get this solved once and for all. In fact, you should be thankful I didn't open an RfC regarding your conduct (as some others have suggested), but instead mediation (which I thought was far more appropriate), especially since the table version really was already decided anyway. You should realize though that a disagreement with the request for mediation, considering the revert warring, may indicate an unwillingness to cooperate. And that is not good. As for the interfering with the work of the Russia Portal? And not being Russian? And being too young? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And if I have a desire to improve the encyclopedia, that's exactly what I'm going to do. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)13:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As of me - I have regular talk to foreign people and constantly hear statements about light rails in Moscow. I have persuade at least one, AO, to support an aspire to significantly reduce misunderstandings. People like you seems even don't care... Elk Salmon 10:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, sandwiching the colors in between the (english and cyrillic) names was supposed to visualize the difference between the "light rails" and the "Light Metro" concepts?--Sascha. 12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

yes. менее вызывающе (don't know how to translate). Elk Salmon 13:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but as someone who has been to Moscow quite often I have never heard the termn light rails, the Light Metro is used rather frequentely, and if one asks anyone why is it Light then they will say - estacade. --Kuban Cossack 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell you that there is no such word as estacade in the English language? Please rv your own rv as well, there were other edits there that you reverted that had nothing to do with you. It'd be cool if you actually looked at the changes. And the fact remains – your "improvement" was not more professional, but less, than what was there before. lensovet 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Harsh words best of course be avoided (at least as unproductive), but nevertheless: Kuban kazak, the version of the Notes your rved was better language and more to the point. I also think you should revert it back — that'll improve the section. And estacade/эстакада are the so called false friends--Sascha. 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sasha...at least I know I'm not going crazy... :) lensovet 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm indeed talking about people who never been in Moscow. And just read slippy Light Metro or L1, even on wiki page. Elk Salmon 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Elk and Georgia Guy, please accept or decline the mediation offer at WP:RFM#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate_2. lensovet 08:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)