Jump to content

Talk:Moscow Metro/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Please clarify

Kuban Kazak claims that there is a 12th line that is some kind of "chordial line" proposed. Is this a line that was planned before Butovskaya was decided or is this line still planned as of 2006?? Georgia guy 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Georgia guy, please accept or decline mediation on the request for mediation page. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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. 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.

The remainder of this discussion can be found in the archive. Please do not add new comments to the archive; add them to this page instead.

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)
Знаешь Элк тут я полностью согласен, ну нельзя так за яйца кота тянуть. Самое главное, что от этого ты выиграешь? Время? Look at it this way if you do not participate, the mediation will continue without you. And we will make our most to take your opinion, but as your absense will not allow you to defend it. Once we arrive at a consensus there, пиши пропало, since your table will be taken down, and then your reverts will be treated as vandalism with appropriate sanctions taken against you. IMHO, you have quite a bit more to gain out of the mediation, as in some cases these are your last chances to somehow incorporate your opinion on the matter. Подумал бы своей упрямой головой. --Kuban Cossack 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A note once again - #2 is what we have already in the article. Question is in position of columns. Elk Salmon 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

О блин мастер! Maybe then we're using table 1, only with one of the columns removed? If we're changing the order of the columns, then it's not table 2. Хватит шлангом прикидоватся. lensovet 15:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 3 posts was moved from my talk page Elk Salmon 08:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Мастер не мастер. Но мне не безразлично как нормальное московсокое метро называют на западе. Я постоянно слышу термин light rails от иносмтранцев и вынужден проводить разъяснительный разговор. По это мне не безразлично как выглядит таблица. Я стремлюсь сделать её более понятной и сделать спорные элементы менее вызывающе. Казак - хочешь называй не безразличие упрямством. Но я бы больше упрямством называл абсолютное безразличие к проблеме и желание оставить по своему просто потому что так хочется. Elk Salmon 08:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
1 – foreigners могут отдохнуть. 2 – честно вам говорю, не вижу каким образом порядок колонок может улучшить понимание этих иностранцев. не вижу. а мастер вы потому что называете это "table 2" не смотря на то что это не так. Accept the mediation request regardless and we can work from there. lensovet 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Повторюсь ещё раз. Цифра в этом случае становится менее вызывающей. Люди смотрят на имя. Остальное становится менее важным. Elk Salmon 15:58, 24 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‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]... [1]. 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)

Request for Mediation Closing

The request for mediation will most likely be closed soon since all parties have not agreed to mediation. So, we're back to square one (or perhaps square two). The straw poll indicates 7-2 in favor of table #2 (which isn't in the article). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the request for mediation has been rejected. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Number two doesn't mean automatically that priority of columns is agreed by everyone. Elk Salmon 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much the difference between number one and number two (apparently, it makes all the difference somehow). Not everyone needs to agree with number two; just a good percentage. Seven of nine is a good percentage. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Давай сделаем голосовалку на факт того что Буш Афро-американец и у него черная кожа? Если большинство выскажется за примишь ли ты результаты? Я думаю нет и сослешся на WP:NOR. Я делаю тоже. Elk Salmon 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's have you talking in english ok? First off, we have discussed this before. Table two is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. PERIOD. End of story. If you don't believe me, let's ask the people at WP:NOR themselves, OK? I shall do that right now. —lensovet–talk – 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, risqué comments involving blacks are not only inappropriate but also have nothing to do with this discussion.
OK, the results are in. Here's what people have to say:
All I can say is that I do not understand the user's concern, as the dispute seems to be about whether the subway line name or number should be presented in the first column of the chart. If that really is the entire dispute, I suggest that the chart layout is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss, but bringing WP:NOR into a conversation about the order of the columns is more confusing than helpful. Jkelly 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless the second table inherently exhibits or strongly suggests facts that are not widely accepted, it is just an issue of presentation and not OR. Deco 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What discuss? They just reject to do it. Elk Salmon 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, way to sidestep the issue. The verdict is in. Order of columns is not original research. so stop saying it's original research. Stop being a hose. —lensovet–talk – 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it not when it is define own priority of identifications? It is define that numbers are first identification, while MM use names. Elk Salmon 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Elk, don't be ridiculous. What exactly does Bush being white, or 2 times 2 being equal 4 for that matter, have to do with the question which variant of the table to chose?--Sascha. 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you stop repeating that second table should be in article instead of what we have. What we have is TABLE #2.
Elk, what was that? :) --Sascha. 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Elk you really are appaling everybody with your behaivour. First you create a table that is based on your convictions, then you reject a mediation that has been selected by everybody else who rejects your partisan version. Now you are still refusing to show any compromise or willingness to accept that you are not the only person on this world. Now Tariq is trying to use a good cop approach, and I think a cabal would be his next attempt, but for me IMO an RfC on user conduct is very close for you. I did not want to escalate this conflict but it seems you must get sexual pleasure from it because otherwise I refuse to believe that anybody would have any reason to be this stubborn about it.--Kuban Cossack 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Казак. О каком копромисе идет речь? Восстановление, слегка перекрашенной, старой таблицы? И кто есть все? Я, Грузинский пацан и Аокромес высказались ясно за последовательность. Есть кто-то кто высказался чётко против не прикрываясь голосовалками и посредничеством, отвергая конструктивный диалог? Упрямым здесь я нахожу тебя, беспричинно постоянно пытающегося защищать свои правки... Хватит уже быть столбом. 10 причин было привидено почему таблица должна изменица. У тебя ответ один - нет. И всё. Elk Salmon 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original" table

Before elk tells us that table 2 = original table, i suggest we revisit the original table.

# Name 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

—lensovet–talk – 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides not looking less aesthetically pleasing than both of the current proposals, the colors look off. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of presentation

Sorry to butt in - I'm not even sure I remember how I got to be reading this crazy argument! The question seems to be about which column should go first, the number/colour or the roman transcription of the name. Neither table presents the lines in alphabetical order of name, but instead in order of number. Therefore, de facto, the numbers take precedence, whichever column comes first. I've looked at both tables, and I can't see why anyone should argue for one over the other.--King Hildebrand 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. Don't worry about butting in – we need outsiders in this argument !

I've just looked at the map - it seems to have a line "M1" on it. Where does that fit in? --King Hildebrand 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The M1 is the monorail line. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Monorail_Transit_System

By the way, I haven't been in Moscow since 1982, and I can't remember anything abou tsubway signs, routes, maps or anything else. My viewpoint comes only from what is presented on WP.--King Hildebrand 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! —lensovet–talk – 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again?

Why was the table reverted again? I thought we were done with this. -- tariqabjotu 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No. We didn't. Elk Salmon 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Elk I can't understand why are you so stubborn? You refuse a mediation, you refuse to listen to anyone, you refuse an opinion of a straw poll, and you make the most rediculous argument for the most rediculous dispute. It is as if you are inviting us to edit war and conflict with you. --Kuban Cossack 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Beginning (please follow this section).

Beginning from 0. Please don't post useless comments, like we have reached consensus, or we have decided everything etc. Only useful comment are welcome.

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.

So, important reasons:

1. Because of light metro/light rail misunderstandings, Numbers should not be in first column.
a. Because these are not index numbers.
b. Because it will make names more important and numbers less visible at first look. per #4.
2. Stress (first column) should be on line names and color, because of these indentifications are most popular, while numbers does not using.
3. Color column should be wide as it is now, but starting table from wide color column is very negative for an eye. Cells with colored background should bot be putted in first column.
4. Names should be primal identification as it is officially (MM refers to lines primary by names).
5. Putting color names to numbers will make it even better in feeling.

Elk Salmon 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't see any reason for the numbers to be dropped:

  • they are convenient for non russian speakers (and this article is meant for the non russian speakers),
  • they are official (used on official maps, who is technically doing the printing is of no importance here)
  • they are widely used in MM itself as a reference to lines, and their use is increasing lately (every direction sign in MM featuring a line name now also has a number, for the benefit of non russian speakers, no doubt)

so my point is: they are official, they are in use and they are convenient for non russian speakers, why drop them? 

So at first I would like to hear comments

So I hope that at second you'd try to put up a consensus, or at least a majority, before moving on to actually removing the numbers from the MM article.

The rest is a repetition of what has been answered many times already, I'll answer it once more, if you so wish, next time I have time, Elk. --Sascha. 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like, Elk, you have yet another design in mind, one different from table one and table two. Can you please reproduce your table here? However, I must note that I agree with all three of Sascha.'s objections; I don't understand why you have such a severe aversion to table two. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't propose anything new. I don't propose total removing of numbers. Just changing of priority of columns for table 2 and removing * for L1 (provocative thing as well).
Sasha, answering for your statements
  • may be yes. but numbers are uncommon in mm.
  • yes, official.
  • not true. only on maps. and possibly on some signes.
Elk Salmon 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes it is (true). I suggest you have a look. I was myself surprised to find the lines referred to by numbers on virtually every direction sign in MM. And on one-line-maps too. Feels fairly recent to me.
As for "changing of priority of columns" — it is indeed nothing new, you have been proposing it for quite some time and I still don't think it's a good idea (the reasons have been stated to many times to repeat already).
Same for the "removal of L1" — your original idea that had started the whole row. Besides, it is an official MM designation, we can remove it from the article but we can not remove it from everywhere else (unless, of course, you can convince Gaev to drop it :) So I (still) think that this L1 Light Metro — light rail ambiguity is best dealt with by explaining and not by "hiding" it (in the second column?) from the reader.--Sascha. 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Not true. They are not widely used in MM. Only maps and severals modern new MM brand signs where numers are only parts of design. Nobody use signes. MM refers only by names. Passengers mostly by colors and some by names. Indeed hiding it in second columns makes it less vulgarian. Elk Salmon 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Have not seen a single direction sign in MM lately that would make a reference to a certain line without showing it's number. There may still be some around, of course, but they are disappearing quickly. Could you make a pic of such a sign when you see it, I mean a sign referring to a line without mentioning its number ? That'll be interesting.--Sascha. 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There are such on every stations, except of lines stl, ll, bl and station built in last 10 years. These are equiped with new MM brand signes. Plus some lines with with experimental signes installed in begin of 90's. Both types are parts of design. MM itself does not refer to numbers. here is old [2].Elk Salmon 22:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not exactely relevant, just because some of the stations in Ukraine retained their Russian title on the vestibule means we have to name their article in Russian? It is true that MM has not changed all of its signs, but that is not relevant here. What is is that the sighns that are produced presentely do have the L1 index. Which means that L1 is the number of BLLM. Are going to sit around and wait until Line #12 opens in 2018 (Solntevsko-Mytishchenskaya)? --Kuban Cossack 10:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are such on every stations, except of lines stl, ll, bl… and sl, zl, fl, ktsl, krl, tkl, kl and (probably) all the rest of them. Tretyakovskaya/Novokuznetskaya is little else but an intersting exception that proves the rule. They simply hasn't changed the (all) the signs there yet :)--Sascha. 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
All the rest are with non-brand signes. Where numbers are part of design as well. They are still unusable. MM never refer to numbers and colors as well as passengers. Elk Salmon 05:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to understand your last post, but failed completely.--Sascha. 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New station

Just to note few updates that should be done. Number of stations: 172. Route length: 278,8km. Shortest stage: Delovoy Center - Mezhdunarodnaya. 502m. Stations with one entrance: 69 Entrances: 264 Escalators: 616 Filyovskaya line length: 19,0km.

I suggest to split up table of numbers of MM. First table should contain figures that we able to update constantly. And second for more specific data from official table. Elk Salmon 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And someone update the map because International Station opened on the light-blue line. Nutmegger 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

there is not official updated map yet. Elk Salmon 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that to split up the table would be a good idea. First, it does not make making changes more convenient, one will still have to change them. Second, it is not the convenience for the editor that should matter here, but for the reader. And one table is more clear and concise than two. Third, new stations are not added all too often, it's not a big deal to update the table once in a while. So — why fix what is not broken?--Sascha. 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Salmon, here we go again...what the hell? Why reinvent the wheel? The table is taken directly from MM's website. It's not that hard to see when that page is modified, and when it is, just update the table on here. You're once again starting a useless fight, and like Sasha said, wiki is supposed to be convenient for the reader, not the editor. Stop it. —lensovet–talk – 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Hands Off

For the record, if anyone reverts the table on this article again back to "table one", I will not revert back. Simply put, this matter really is not a big deal and the differences between the two versions of the table are trivial. If Elk Salmon, or anyone else, wants to revert against consensus, I think it's best that we just let them. It may seem like "giving in", but really, it's not worth the energy. Perhaps the inactivity here demonstrates that people have already begun to realize that. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stations closing time

Where have you got this 1:04 time from, Elk? 1:00 stays at the stations as well as on the MM website just look here:

Улица Подбельского 5:35 - 1:00

And why all those zeros all of a sudden? MM utilizes them not, and neither were they in the article, why switch to them now? And partially at that? Btw I think it'd be a good idea to use 12hour clock, otherwise it's ambiguous, with or without extra zeros. What do you think? --Sascha. 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stunningly beautiful

"it's commonly accepted. so NPOV" writes Elk Salmon. Actually it is not. A lot of people think of them as kitsch. The first expl from Google and the BBC:

Once you arrive on one of the cavernous platforms you will be assaulted by an array of bronzed light fittings, mosaics, sparkling chandeliers, statues, stained-glass windows, busts, friezes, odd designs in beaten metal and acres and acres of gleaming marble, all monumentalizing an idealised Communist never-never land. If you like Soviet kitsch, the Metro is your place.

And on the whole the article is rather positive about Moscow Metro btw. So it's a taste thing and therefore better kept out of an encyclopedia article.--Sascha. 10:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Once more about this "beautiful" thing – it is a taste, subjective question and therefore should not be pressed upon the reader as a fact. That is it should be deleted or rephrased.--Sascha. 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moscow_Metro/Archive_3&oldid=1065834348"