Talk:Metro: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Language fog== | |||
This article [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Metro&oldid=100719158 currently] exists in a language fog. "Metro" is a name for specific mass transit systems, such as Paris or D.C. It is not as correct to say the "Bay Area Metro" or the "London Metro" as it is to say "Bay Area Rapid Transit" or "London Underground." Even NYC's transit system which has the word "Metropolitan" in its official title isn't known as a "metro" but is called the "transit authority" or "MTA" ("metro-card" notwithstanding). The current direction of this article does not resolve this ambiguity, preferring to call a "metro" any urban mass transit system regardless of whether or not it is in fact called a "metro." I'd suggest that the article either talk about the systems that are actually called "metros" or rename this article [[Urban Mass Transit]]. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 23:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:As I remember, this was a quickie from Uncategorized Articles. | |||
:Washington-area residents call the overall system WMATA and the rail component Metro, although the various components officially are named Metrobus, Metrorail, Metroaccess ([[paratransit]]), etc. | |||
:I would not object to a move to Urban Mass Transit, but, certainly, the Paris and Washington systems are actually called Metro. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::That's exactly my point, Howard. [[Metro]] should be about (or be a disambig page for) the DC and Paris metros. And [[Metro]] should not include [[BART]], [[MTA]], [[CTA]], or any other transit system which is not a "Metro." [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, you are the train expert. What would you suggest? | |||
:::I'm hoping to get a housemate, who used to be vice-chair of the WMATA paratransit advisory panel, to join CZ and write on paratransit, both general and Metroaccess. | |||
:::MTA will need much disambiguation -- transit, Kingston Trio, electronic mail, etc. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:13, 10 October 2010
Language fog
This article currently exists in a language fog. "Metro" is a name for specific mass transit systems, such as Paris or D.C. It is not as correct to say the "Bay Area Metro" or the "London Metro" as it is to say "Bay Area Rapid Transit" or "London Underground." Even NYC's transit system which has the word "Metropolitan" in its official title isn't known as a "metro" but is called the "transit authority" or "MTA" ("metro-card" notwithstanding). The current direction of this article does not resolve this ambiguity, preferring to call a "metro" any urban mass transit system regardless of whether or not it is in fact called a "metro." I'd suggest that the article either talk about the systems that are actually called "metros" or rename this article Urban Mass Transit. Russell D. Jones 23:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I remember, this was a quickie from Uncategorized Articles.
- Washington-area residents call the overall system WMATA and the rail component Metro, although the various components officially are named Metrobus, Metrorail, Metroaccess (paratransit), etc.
- I would not object to a move to Urban Mass Transit, but, certainly, the Paris and Washington systems are actually called Metro. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you are the train expert. What would you suggest?
- I'm hoping to get a housemate, who used to be vice-chair of the WMATA paratransit advisory panel, to join CZ and write on paratransit, both general and Metroaccess.
- MTA will need much disambiguation -- transit, Kingston Trio, electronic mail, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)