Talk:Busan Metro Line 1

Edit summaries

Just a reminder that Edit summaries are supposed to be confined to what the editor did and should not be used to talk back and forth from one editor to another. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox map/list

HanSangYoon prefers to have a list of stations in the infobox. However, this duplicates the list of stations that's already in the article, and gives more detail. He objected to the route map that gave the physical layout of the line because it showed stations that weren't properly part of the route. I copied and edited that image to only include the current stations, but he removed that as well. Which image do other people think should be used? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Completely agree. The template is far too large and makes the infobox enormous while adding no unique information to the page (ie, everything is coved by the route table). However, if the template must stay, why can't it be expanded to incorporate interchanges and much of the info from the table, then replace the table in the article body, while the smaller geographic map populate the infobox? ColonialGrid (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, I am neutral on this particular question. Plenty of articles like this one use a Route Map in the Infobox. However, in this case, I also agree that the full Route Map is basically duplicative(this a word, right?!) of the included stations table. That said, there are still plenty of articles (esp. for the Asian rail systems) that still do both... I think I come down thusly: if the Route Map is to be used in the Infobox, then it should be with the 'map_state' "collapsed", and we might want to include the line map image in the article separately (i.e. outside the Infobox). FWIW... --IJBall (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This may seem obvious, but as much as it's obvious, my bravery to defend my stance is strong; I'm against replacing the route template with the image map. I see SarekOfVulcan has cut off the northern extension rumor of the line; however, I wonder where he got the image, since I'm certain that image wasn't originally his (I saw the same image years ago). What's more, he must've used paint to cut off the northern section; I wonder how he was able to go this from the beginning?

Now the main reason: As ColonialGrid stated above, the image is limited to a lot of things. I agree, the route template isn't at its fullest yet (which is missing of the county they go by, rivers and borders, etc.) but what the route map does show right now is of the number of the stations, aboveground/underground status, and later on, we can add on the things it's missing (but to note, the entire subway system in South Korea does not intersect with commercial roads, like LA does, so we can't add roads). This also means the image has less of a functionality than the route map. And to note, other railway stations such as Los Angeles Metro, London Underground, and even the Korean Wikipages of their own country's railway all shows route templates. It really isn't reasonable to put up an image instead of route templates. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is confusing, you say you want both in the infobox? How would you feel about expanding the template to cover all the info the table does but it doesn't, and them using the template in place of the table in the article body? That way both the geographic maps, and schematic template would be in the article without overwhelming the infobox or omitting details. Also, what do you think I said about image limitations? Maybe you should read what I wrote again. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid: So you thought that I haven't read your comment and posted a response? I don't even want to add sarcasm here.

You're saying that route templates take up too much space, but in fact, that isn't revelant at all. Route templates does take up space, and there's nothing worse or unneccessary about that; what are you gonna say about other pages with route templates? What's really unneccessary is the picture. It lacks a lot of information, including aboveground-underground status and what river does it go through of pass by...Ive already explained above. And geographic information doesn't need to be described by the shape of the line; if we add the fact that certain parts of the line section goes through what county and what region, then that's what summarizes the geographical service of the metro line. And if you feel that the Infobox shouldn't be taking up as much space when the route template is ejected, then either add more information, or edit the table to fit along.HanSangYoon (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon, you said (in boldface): "I'm against replacing the image map with the route template." This implies that you support the image map over the route template, but you later say you want the template (as was your previous position), hence my confusion. I did read what you said properly, maybe you didn't mean what you wrote or failed to proofread your message properly? I also didn't say anything about limitations of maps, maybe you misread what I wrote? ColonialGrid (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems I had some switch-up with words. It is now fixed. And when you said the quote, "However, if the template must stay, why can't it be expanded to incorporate interchanges and much of the info from the table?", I believe I took your words as something limited the image cannot expand of. And with the table, it is neccessary to list them because of the things the route diagram cannot describe of, such as the Hanja name of the stations, distances between stations, specific and detailed transfers which are not part of the subway (in the route diagram, I am against adding transfers of KTX or other national rails as it seems quite awkward as a local subway page).HanSangYoon (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear Terramorphous's opinion on this. However, I think I agree, in general, with ColonialGrid on this: but the problem isn't this article in particular on that score – it's many of the Asian "rail" lines articles, that have both an expansive "stations table" and an expansive "Route Map" (which is usually in the Infobox) – oftentimes both together seems like overkill in these articles. --IJBall (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems Terramorphous is ignoring this...I'm actually waiting continuously for his reply here?HanSangYoon (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Busan Metro Line 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611145955/http://english.busan.go.kr/04_transportation/04_03_01.jsp to http://english.busan.go.kr/04_transportation/04_03_01.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)