User talk:Kildor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kildor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Kuban Cossack 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 List of rapid transit systems 2 Bus Rapid Transit 3 Stockholm rapid transit systems 4 New York City rapid transit 5 ???? 6 Nockebybanan 7 Future tags 8 Template:Current 9 Laon 10 future golf 11 Use of team logos in the NBA Finals articles

[edit] List of rapid transit systems

Hey Kildor, how you doing, in "List of rapid transit systems" not only do we have got Continents, but also Oceans and Seas, folks not only live in Continents but in islands other than Continents, furthermore the Caribbean is not part of North America, just as Oceania is also not a Continent , cheers - -- Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you! It is quite common to divide the world countries into continents, even if some countries does not belong to a continent shelf. For example, Iceland is most often considered to be part of Europe, even though it is an island. In the list of countries by continent, Puerto Rico is listed under North America. So I cannot se why the list of rapid transit systems should be different and have a separate section for Caribbean. And being a commonwealth of the United States, the system it might alternatively be listed as a city in the United States.

I am perhaps wrong in this matter. If so, please point me out an article or list where countries are divided in the way you prefer. -- -- Kildor (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kildor, here again, technically the Caribbean is not part of North America, just like Hawaii is not part of North America although even though its a state, United States has 50 states, not 51, further more, where not dealing with "geopolitical maps", ask a Jamaican, Dominican, or any Caribbean country even the United States Virgin Islands and they will tell you that they are Caribbean, it doesn't matter if its a a state, commonwealth or country, hope this it clears up matters!

. . . by the way, i would like to complement you on the magnificent job you've did on the "new table format", i would have left "under construction systems" perhaps, but it doesn't matter, it looks very encyclopedic and superb!!. - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! There is still some work to do - fill in the missing numbers, for instance. And reaching a consensus about the definition and what systems to include. The reason why I chose not to include systems under construction is that it makes it very difficult to determine if the system is rapid transit or not, due to lack of information. And a lot of things can change during the process of construction. But when the list has become "stable", it might be a good idea to add a "Under construction" section.

I understand that you want Puerto Rico in a Caribbean section. But I cannot see the arguments for it. There seem to be no objection to the way the countries are divided in list of countries by continent and similar lists. Nevertheless, it is not a big deal, and I won't make any changes to it now. There are other way more important things to do here :) Cheers! -- Kildor (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kildor, a continent is a large landmass on Earth, seven areas are commonly regarded as continents – they are: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe and Australia, please see: Continent.

The Caribbean region, even though its located in the Americas, geographically is a separate distinct region located southeast of North America, east of Central America, and to the north and west of South America, and List of countries by continent is not correct, needs to be fixed and be more precise, according to all dictionaries, the Caribbean Sea is an arm of the western Atlantic Ocean bounded by the coasts of North, Central and South America, and believe me, I presently reside in this area and by no means do folks in all of the islands consider the Caribbean as part of North America. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point taking this discussion any further here. The subject is obviously controversial, but still, Puerto Rico is included in maps and country list of the North America article. -- Kildor (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The San Francisco Muni Metro runs underground under Market Street and the SFMTA is currently building the Central Subway. This is why it's known as the "metro" - because of these underground portions. It matters not that they use "light rail" cars instead of "heavy rail", they system runs underground over a portion of it's network and is indeed a "subway" or "metro" for that portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on Talk:List of rapid transit systems#San Francisco Muni Metro. --Kildor (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kildo! I only want inform you that the Seville Metro is not a light rail metro, because the system is completly independent of any kind of trafic, is not like Oporto Metro or Madrid Light Rail for example. The Seville Metro will be open the next september with a line of 18,2 km and 22 stations completly independents of the another traffic, with a frecuency of 3-5 min. The infraestructure is completly like a full metro with 2 surface stations (the fist and the last, with a total tranch of around 200 meters competly segregated with a "trench") 3 elevated in viaduct and 17 underground stations but will use trains like "light rail" or tram model. What do you think?, is a light rail only because "light rail-tram" are used, or is a metro for the rest of the infraestructure?? For me is clear, Seville Metro is a Metro system and will be open like a Metro system, not like a light rail, I think that is more correct to englobe this system in this category that in the light rail, cause is not a light rail, and maybe neither a metro cause the trains are not of heavy metro, but is much more metro than light rail.Thanks!--85.136.85.67 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! So far, there is at least one reason not to include Seville Metro in the list of rapid transit systems: it is not yet completed. But when the system is inaugerated, and if it is completely segregated from other traffic, with no crossings for pedestrians or road vehicles, I would say it is a metro system to be included. --Kildor (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! It's ok. The 1st Metro line will be opened in Septemeber 30 without crossings for pedestrian, road vehicles or another trains. In the first project, a little tranch was completly in surface like a tram, but finally, was this option was rejected and now the line go underground by all urban nucleus and elevated in the rest: 100% independent for another traffic and pedestrian. Best regards--85.136.85.67 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Rapid Transit

One technical question, would a Bus System that runs in it's own right of way and crosses no streets and semaphores be considered "Rapid Transit". Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The definition says it must be electric and railway. The problem is that rapid transit is sometime used for certain bus networks. Personally, I think that the article should be renamed List of metro systems to avoid confusion. -- Kildor (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockholm rapid transit systems

Hi Kildor and thank you for answering my question about rapid transit systems in Stockholm. I surely missunderstood one of the criteria that the system should be totally separated from other traffic. I confused it with railway traffic. The Roslagsbanan and Saltsjöbanan indeed have intersections with the other roads but are totally separated from other rail traffic. I have another question: In the future, the commuter trains of Stockholm (pendeltåg), will be run through a tunnel under the central parts. Further, there have been a discussion to upgrade the Bålsta line to four tracks. Thus the pendeltåg traffic will be more or less independent from long distant rail traffic on almost the entire network. However, some cargo traffic to- and from the port of Nynäshamn will of course share the same tracks as the commuter trains. Do you think this upgrade would qualify the pendeltåg-network as a rapid transit comparable to the S-trains of Copenhagen? Mvh Nirro (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When Citybanan and the four-track Karlberg-Kallhäll is completed, Stockholm commuter rail will indeed be near rapid transit standard. The only remaining shared track parts will then be Kungsängen-Bålsta, Upplands Väsby-Märsta, and Järna-Gnesta. The train frequency to Nynäshamn and Gnesta will perhaps still be a little lower than expected for a rapid transit system (30 minutes?). But overall, the commuter rail system will be a transit system of a very high standard.

There are also some discussions going on to shorten the commuter rail network and let the regional trains serve the outer stations (i.e. Kungsängen-Bålsta). In this way, commuter trains and regional trains can run more independently of each other. The other alternative is to extend the commuter rail network and have a combined system with local commuter trains and express commuter trains (snabbpendeltåg). I would rather see a separated system that can function as a rapid transit system. -- Kildor (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York City rapid transit

Hello, Kildor. I will revert your reversion of my accurate dating of New York City's rapid transit system. The title of the article specificies rapid transit systems, not subway or metro systems. Are you unaware of the history of New York's rapid transit, which was a full-blown system in the 1880s? The 1904 date is for the underground IRT only. -- Cecropia (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ????

Can you justify all the deletions you are doing? Grsz 11 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Template talk: Current and its archives. --Kildor (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nockebybanan

I've created a user account in the interests of clearer communication. The Nockebybanan is a stub - it's only eight sentences long. Making edit-summary comments such as "If you are bothered about this article being too short - please add to it!" is childish. The whole point of adding the stub template is to bring other editors' attention to a short article, so if an editor is "bothered about an article being too short" as you put it, adding a stub template is the correct course of action. I've already improved the article to a small degree, but can't expand on it myself which is why I've added the stub template. How an eight-sentence article can be anything other than a stub is beyond me. Paper Dolly (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see on Wikipedia talk:Stub, I oppose the use of stub tags in general. Although I do not like the tags, I do accept and recognize the current guidelines. But as far as I can see, there is no clear definition of a stub. You might think that 8 sentences, 2 images, some facts in a table, and external links are not enough, but I disagree. I think that it is a reasonable amount of information about a rather small subject. One of my concerns with stub tags is that people spend a lot of time adding tags to articles without doing anything at all to improve them. And the only message they bring is that the article is not good enough. I assume that you believe that stub tags will improve the chances for the article to expand. I believe the tags only bring a negative message and bad layout and appearance. With that said, I am happy to see that you decided to make some improvements to the article, and I think I'd rather do the same instead of continuing a edit-war over the stub tags. --Kildor (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future tags

Hi, Kildor. Why are you removing future templates? These are not maintenance templates. As I may understand from your previous discussion,you oppose templates as such. However, I DON'T LIKE IT is not a valid reason for removing. Before taking unilateral actions, please discuss and propose relevant policies concerning overall use of (future) templates. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the template from articles that clearly indicate the contingent nature of the topic. The template is superfluous in these cases, since it adds nothing to the article that is not already known or already indicated by the lead or title of the article. The template cannot be added to every article with any little piece of information regarding the future. If so, it would appear on a huge number of articles here on Wikipedia. --Kildor (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think your removal ot the tag at Hamburg U-Bahn is not correct: the first part of the section are abandoned plans and the second part is build now and planned to open in 2011 . I think this article is a translation from the German article with a wrong headdline, but I've got no idea how to change it. Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You are probably right about the header. But I have no better idea for the moment. But anyone reading this section will quickly understand that U4 line is in planning stages, and the future tag does not add any information that is not already present in the article. Besides, the tag is (in my opinion) rather obtrusive. I simply do not understund why it should be needed. And I also note that the German page does not have a future tag. --Kildor (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the de:wiki also have no references ;-) no serious : after thinking, you're right, it's just a happy picture. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current

I think it would interest you that {{current}}, is not very interchangeble with any other "current" template, since it has a history and guideline that promotes rather narrow use. See Template:Current#Guidelines. Hence it is not a persuasive argument that it might be used in place of another "current" template, such as those under discussion at TFD for April 21 2008. This is in significant contrast to {{future}}'s situation, which is rather substitutable with the various related "future" templates, since (so far) {{future}} does not have a history and guideline that narrows its use. -- Yellowdesk (talk)

This is quite a strange situation, isn't it? The templates are almost identical, so it is rather confusing that one is bound by certain guidelines while the others are not. Since the other current templates were created out of {{current}}, I believe they should have the same guidelines. But obviously, from the last discussion about {{current sport}}, some users disagree. You got a point, and I should perhaps make it clearer that I want the TFD:d templates removed rather than replaced with {{current}}. --Kildor (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you are doing a great job maintaining the proper use of {{current}}!! --Kildor (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It all has to do with the lack of a fairly well developed previous discussion hisotory on {{future}}, alas, to rely on, for having a (previous) consensus on use. I think though it's possible to move toward one on the future items, but it's quite late, now that there are 20-odd sister templates, some rather popular. Take a look at this for example on just one of them. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen them all. It will be difficult to develop a consensus on its use, and many editors seem to think that the templates must be used as soon there is something about planned or upcoming events. But most tag removals have been accepted so far, which perhaps is an indication on that consensus will change. It will also be interesting to see the outcome of the TfD discussions! --Kildor (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laon

• http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/laon/laon.htm You have removed Laon because you said it was not listed in Urbanrail, I have checked, Laon is in Urbanrail (while Serfaus is not) ... as well as in the Robert Schwandl book METROS IN FRANKREICH ISBN 3936573131 193.56.37.1 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• See my reply at Talk:List of rapid transit systems. --Kildor (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] future golf

{{Future golf}} has one article use at the moment. It could be added to your recent list. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added that one, and future article. --Kildor (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of team logos in the NBA Finals articles

The classic Celtics logo for the 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 NBA Finals articles does indeed meet #10 of Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria as stated in it's copyright tag. The classic Houston Rockets logo for the 1994 & 1995 NBA Finals logo meets #10 as it states on it's page "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization" as well as the classic 76ers logo for the 1980, 1982, and 1983 NBA Finals. Also #8 Significance is disputed and is still being debated and discussed. Therefor I don't see #8 as a good reason for removal of the logos.

It is my belief that the logos do enhance the articles and add historical value to the articles. Especially the logos that are no longer used by their franchises.--MrKing84 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the #8 criterion may be debatable (although I doubt the finals articles meet that criterion). But #10c is not. The fair use rationale must list every article the logo is used on, with a specific reason to why it should be used there. --Kildor (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do think the the NBA Finals articles do meet that criterion and therefor #8 is not a basis for removal of the logos. And I will be working on the fair use rationale so that they are listed on every article the logos are used on along with a reason. Those logos will appear on the NBA Finals articles.--MrKing84 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will be able to gain support for such use. If you look at other sports/projects, you will notice that team logos only appear in the articles about the corresponding teams, and nowhere else. --Kildor (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)