Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Line infobox and route maps

Hi. I have noticed that there isn't an infobox for indivisual lines. Articles on other countries railways usually have infoboxes for indivisual routes. For example Virgin West Coast has an infobox on the right. Infoboxes are quite useful and I think it would be useful if the indivisual japanese railway lines had one. What do other users think? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 11:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I think we don't really need an infobox since no one really needs quick facts for them. A route map would be nice though. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. If other users agree that a route map would be useful, we could create a task force to create route maps. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 10:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some articles, such as Bantan Line, use Template:infobox rail. Do we need another infobox specialized for Japanese railways? --Sushiya 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that rather than creating another infobox, any necessary parameters should be added to the existing infobox both to reduce the maintenance requirements of nearly duplicate templates and to maintain consistency across all rail transport pages. Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Relevant parameters could be added to the existing infobox. Does anyone else think route maps are a good idea? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 15:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Slambo. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 17:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think adding route maps for each line is a great idea, possibly divide the route map up into the prefectures it crosses or marked on the map? --Dex1337 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually thats a good point. We would need to figure out how the route maps would be organised as they can get quite chaotic and confusing if not done properly. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the infobox used on the Kintetsu Tawaramoto Line (Template:Infobox rail line) is ideal. It is more informative than the one currently used on many articles (Template:BS-daten). I also like that the route map is included as a separate template in the "map" field and not in the article itself (the BS-style route maps are terribly ugly when trying to edit the infobox and/or article. I think the Tawaramoto Line's article perhaps has a few too many fields, perhaps "Owner" and "Operator" don't both need to be listed unless they are different, but in my opinion that infobox is better. Thoughts? Manmaru (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed too, although the line's stopping pattern might give a place to divide it that's more natural than prefecture. Or if not, for the really long main lines (Tokaido, Tohoku, Sanyo etc.) regional boundaries? or display a couple of prefectures in one segment? Some lines already have their tables split into segments, and that can give a hint about where to draw the route maps. (See e.g. Tōkaidō Main Line.) Fg2 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) The route map on Trans-Siberian Railway is a good example of what to do with a very long route. Note how the major sections are collapsable, and regional boundaries are clearly marked, cf Yaroslavl - Kostroma Oblast border (the first one in the first section). So in dealing with say the Sanin Main Line it could collapse wherever there was a "major station" (determined by large amounts of connecting lines/all services stopping there). And say between Kami-Yakuno Station and Yanase Station we could have a black mark saying "Kyoto-Hyōgo Border" --Dex1337 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The graphic/infobox on Trans-Siberian is beautiful. It'd be a wonderful thing to implement for such major lines as the Tokaido, if not for all lines (though I don't know how it'd work for branches, or for the Yamanote which has no 終点駅). LordAmeth 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For some inspiration see the Biwako Line the route map on that is very awesome (and answers your question LordAmeth?). Also see Wikipedia:Route diagram template and Template:Railway line legend this is what I have just dug up on the construction topic, if I wasnt at work right now Id start building them...--Dex1337 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed. I look forward to seeing this all implemented. Ganbare! LordAmeth 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Created my first map here Osaka Monorail Main Line, its easier than it looks! --Dex1337 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

These are really slick, so a lot of people will create these route maps for a lot of lines. Here's a suggestion: if you have a line on your watchlist, put that line's route map template on your watchlist. Dex1337 created {{Osaka Monorail Main Line Map}} for Osaka Monorail Main Line. It automatically goes on the watchlist of the person who creates the template, but others add it manually. This is important because sneak vandals edit templates and the change doesn't show up in the watchlist of anyone who's only watching the line. As most of us know. Fg2 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll start making some maps of lines i am familiar with, which is mainly lines in and around Tokyo, when I can. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

These templates can be a good addition, provided we remember to make them accessible the general audience, and not just railfans. One very nice thing about the Trans-Siberian example is that it is simple. A three-second glance at the Biwako Line tells me that Tokyo is between Sakata Station and Maibara Station (since I know what the numbers – which are not in the legend or even the editor's catalog – mean, and since I also know that Tokyo is not close to Shiga-ken, I can derive the overall meaning; but, working like that to acquire knowledge is not something most people want out of what should be a nice summarizing chart). Also, the level of detail around Otani and Inari stations (which are not even on the Biwako Line) is admirable, but, is it necessary? At the very least, maybe the hide option can keep out everything except the stations which are actually on the line, and the intersections? Those are just a couple of thoughts. The catalog of symbols seems very complete, although, it is missing the ability to distinguish one-track and two-track segments (to see what I mean, something I experimented with is the table of Uetsu Main Line). Neier 13:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I made one for Tanimachi Line that I think is a good compromise - it focusses on just the main line and ignores the detail on the crossing tracks, making for a simpler diagram. Also using a key at the top (km, station) lets people know a bit more info. One more question, whats a better idea, making a separate template or pasting the map code directly in the page. After some consideration I think pasting into the line is a much better idea, as it means that its a lot easier for people to edit, as they dont have to pull up a separate template, and also it means whoever owns the page the line is automatically put on their watchlist which helps vanadalism --Dex1337 00:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any useful sources or maps of where bridges, tunnels etc are on a route? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

http://johomaps.com/ has some useful maps, I was able to complete all the subway maps from Osaka (well apart from my memory...) using http://johomaps.com/as/japan/osaka/osakametro.html. They have some other rail maps of japan (http://johomaps.com/as/japan/tokyo/tokyo2.html, http://johomaps.com/as/japan/tokyo/kantorail_jp.html, http://johomaps.com/as/japan/tokyo/tokyo2_jpn.html). Dont necessarily show tunnels etc, but at least you can see when it crosses major waterways and motorways... --Dex1337 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information, some articles about metro lines (none in Japan, I believe) use another method to draw route maps. PATCO Speedline is a good sample of such maps. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Station_bullet may work as a list. --Sushiya 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are nice too -- especially the ability to assign color to each line and the intersections, etc. They look more like what you would expect if you picked up a route guide at a station. Neier 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adjacent Stations - What was the rationale behind the adjacent stations box layout? Although it is VERY useful on the more complex lines like the Odakyu it could use some improvement. For example, the Chitose-Funabashi Station box seems to indicate that all services stop there and the neighbours are passed, while in reality it only gets local and section-semi service. Kyodo Station is worse, as it's stopping pattern is rather complex. As I look at the box now I'm not sure if the Express stops at Kyodo and passes Shimo-Kitazawa in the daytime, or the other way round. (I live 1km from Kyodo station and use it often - the box is still confusing.) 125.0.86.146 (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the lines in Japanese Wikipedia have the BS-style route diagrams. However, I find that there are many unnecessary additions. In particular, old railway lines and stations that have been closed for a long time are depicted in detail. Take in point the Kintetsu Toba Line (JA WP link). The areas around Ise, Ujiyamada, and Isuzugawa are filled up with blue lines that make the area look far more complicated than it actually is (I live there), and this old tramway is not associated with Kintetsu at all. I took that map and edited it to be more simple (see Kintetsu Toba Line). The only other line that is important to depict somehow in the Toba Line's diagram is JR's Sangū Line (which I'll be making an article for soon) because it runs parallel to the Toba Line. I suggest that the only "closed" things that should be shown on the diagrams are station or perhaps significant parts of track that were replaced; unrelated lines and stations should not be depicted I think. Thoughts? Manmaru (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Move request: Japan Railway to Japan Railways Group

I posted a move request of Japan Railway to Japan Railways Group. Your comments are welcome to Talk:Japan Railway.--Sushiya 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Move? request

Otsuka Station (with and without the macron) started out as just the station in Tokyo. At one point, it was changed to a DAB including Astram Ozuka Station in Hiroshima. Now, it is redirecting to the Ōtsuka Station (Tokyo) article. Either the article should be moved back to Ōtsuka Station to avoid both the redirect and the (Tokyo) DAB; or, Ōtsuka Station should be returned to its DAB page contents. I'm not strongly in favor of one solution or the other; but, I think the current situation needs to be fixed. Any opinions on which solution is better? Neier 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion was originally caused by a misunderstanding that there were two stations named Otsuka[1]. Actually, there are one Otsuka and one Ozuka, which do not need to be disambiguated in English Wikipedia. I recommend the article name Ōtsuka Station for the station in Tokyo and Ōzuka Station for the station in Hiroshima. --Sushiya 11:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sushiya. The Japanese Wikipedia article ja:大塚駅 lists only one station that would have the romanization "Ōtsuka" so there doesn't seem to be a need for "(Tokyo)." As Sushiya said, there's an Ōzuka, which needs disambiguation in Japanese since they're written with the same kanji, but it does not need it in English because the spellings are different. It might be useful, for the rare situation when a person who incorrectly guesses the romanization based on the kanji arrives at the wrong article, to include a link from each article to the other, but I'm not sure whether that would actually ever help anyone. So I wouldn't bother.

Long ago, the English Wikipedia had a disambiguation link from Tokyo to Tonkin. The apparent reason is that they're both written with the same kanji in Japanese. We removed that link years ago. I think this Ōtsuka/Ōzuka case is similar. What needs disambiguation in one language might not in another. Fg2 11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the articles have been renamed Ōtsuka Station and Ōzuka Station. --Sushiya 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Station categorization

There are a couple of new categories I noticed tonight: Category:Railway stations in Matsumoto City, and Category:Railway stations in Nagano City. Besides the problem of the very non-MoS "City" suffix, I wonder if it is good or bad to subdivide all the Railway stations in XYZ Prefecture categories by city. I believe these categories were made to mimic the Japanese wiki. Most (if not all) cities have their own category there, but the same is not true here (seen by the red link parents Category:Nagano City and Category:Matsumoto City of those two cats, or even the MoS-correct names Category:Nagano, Nagano and Category:Matsumoto, Nagano).

My opinion is currently leaning towards leaving prefectures as the smallest locale category for mainly two reasons. First, no prefecture has more than 400 stations, meaning it is just two pages to find any station. It may be true that no prefecture has more than 200; but, I know that some of them are close, so, I won't make that assertion. Within a city/town/village, we should also already have links to the stations in the transportation section, so, the information would be there and nothing is lost. Second, for consistency reasons, copying the ja: wikipedia method would drive me nuts, because only the stations in a city are subcategorized. Stations in villages or towns are all left at the top of the prefecture.

What do others think? Is copying ja: a good method? Should we go all-out, and subcat every station into its village? Or, should we leave them in the prefectures alone? Neier 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

A discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taepyeong Station. Fg2 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this nomination includes no fewer than 250 articles. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that a number of people from this project have looked at this deletion discussion. I'd been worrying about something like this coming up ever since I first found out about this Project and discovered that more or less every single station in Japan either has an article or is intended to be given an article. What can be done to establish notability for each and every one of these articles? The general notion that train stations in general are notable doesn't really hold water in my personal opinion, and while I have no problem whatsoever with the "other things exist" argument, many editors don't consider that a valid argument either. You ask me, it's a systemic bias issue, in that Korea should be one of the first train systems to be nommed for deletion in this way; had that gone through, Japan would likely have not been far behind, but I don't imagine that anyone would ever nom the hundreds of minor stations in the US & UK which have their own articles, at least not in the first wave.

... I'm not a deletionist, and I have no interest in seeing everyone's work end up being for naught. What can we do to more solidly, more thoroughly, establish notability for these hundreds of articles? LordAmeth (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Find someone in Japan who's willing to do the legwork and research in newspaper and magazine archives to find multiple articles on all of them. All I can say is that—in general—train stations are always notable and act as a focus of economic activity for any area they are in. This isn't always true for every station, but it is true for the vast majority of them (especially in smaller towns in Japan). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that notability should be even easier to establish for subway stations (which many of the nominated articles covered). It's hard to imagine building a subway station stealthily. There are bound to be magazine articles, television reports and other coverage of the construction of the line and its stations. Subway stations, being underground, are harder to construct, and are normally built in densely populated areas. They can't be moved. Construction can be very disruptive, and there's normally quite a lot of advance publicity promising transportation when they open. It's also hard to imagine building a subway station on a whim. Public hearings, impact statements, and all the paraphernalia of government projects go into siting decisions.

Finally, the more substantial the article, the better its chances. As the editor who nominated the articles noted, an article that just names the station, the line and the location is not substantial. But an article that includes links to neighboring stations, services offered, history, station facilities, ridership, and things in the area has a lot more going for it. When I was new to Wikipedia, I read a post by an editor saying he or she would usually not nominate an article for deletion if it had a good solid paragraph. Articles that make it over that bar are pretty clearly safer. And the bar is not very high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So lets get to work: put an infobox station on each, use the s-line templates to make them systematically required. A photo really helps too. Cosnahang (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

FYI, I have uploaded few pictures from my recent visit to Japan, and all of them can be found here --Tadayuki ^紅葉 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishi-Magome Station

I started the article Nishi-Magome Station by clicking the link in Toei Asakusa Line. The template, however, has a different link -- Nishi-magome Station. Which capitalization is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to Nishi-magome Station, the capitalization shown in the map on the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation site. Changed it in the article on the line as well. Now the template functions properly. But if the project says the capitalization should be different, I don't mind. Fg2 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find a sign with the romanized name, that's what should be used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of searching and found this image, which definitively shows the "Nishi-magome Station" romanization is correct. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Fg2 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In case it comes up again, [2] has a pretty comprehensive set of platform sign photos. Neier (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. As it turns out, I started some more articles by clicking red links, and they've been moved to different capitalizations, probably for this very reason. I wonder what's the best way to mark this resource so it doesn't get lost in archives? Fg2 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding it as a resource on the project's main page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I started a section called "Resources." Feel free to edit of course. Thanks Fg2 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1-way station?

Many station articles have a line like this:

1-way, 2-track, above-ground station.

It seems to correspond to Japanese expression of "ichi-men ni-sen" (one platform, two tracks). I don't know whether it is acceptable or not as an English expression, but at least I worry this may not be understandable for normal readers. Use of the term "one-way" might be misleading. Confirmation by native speakers would be appreciated. --Sushiya (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a useful link on terminology I found in looking for an answer to your question. http://www.railway-technical.com/stations.shtml#Side-Platform Fg2 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually put something like "one platform which can handle two lines/trains at once". I'd have to go look at some of the articles I've done to see for sure. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My phrasing has been along the lines of "one platform serving two tracks." Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. You can see my phrasing by looking at the Geibi Line articles, or any of the other train articles I've done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Looking at the newest articles, should we make it so that all train station articles have infoboxes. Sorry if this is already decided, since I'm a bit back in time. --Hirohisat ^年末 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi I vote a big YES to all stations having an infobox which includes a photo, the coordinates and the S-rail line information. see Akayu Station for an example I did today Cosnahang (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

JR Question

Does the Japanese government own any shares in any of the JR companies? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but indirectly. Please see Japan Railways Group#Ownership (new section I've just created). --Sushiya (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-Japanese pages in 'Pages needing attention'?

There's a whole slew of non-Japan-related articles in the pages needing attention section - e.g. New Jersey Transit rail operations. What's up with that? --moof (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ATO routes

How many lines (including all companies) in Tokyo operate on ATO. I know that the Tokyo metro Namboku line does and I think the Tokyu Meguro line also does but how many others are there. Thanks in advance. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ja:自動列車運転装置 has a list categorized according to automatic with no operator on board (nine lines in Japan, including Yurikamome), subway automatic with an operator on board (14 lines in Japan including five Tokyo lines, some only a segment, one of them scheduled to open in June, and some in limited time periods), and private or third-sector. The list does not state that it's comprehensive. Fg2 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Infobox Japanese EMU

A consensus has been reached on templates for deletions on converting the Infobox Japanese EMU template into the generic Infobox EMU template, and also, the Template:Infobox Japanese EMU is to be deleted soon. Please convert all the articles using the template into the generic Template:Infobox EMU so the deletion can proceed properly. If there is any objections regarding the template for deletion itself, please leave a message on my talk page, but so far the consensus seems to be that the generic template should be used.

The articles that need to be worked on are:

• 201 series
• 205 series
• 203 series
• Kobe New Transit 2000 series
• 223 series
• Tōkyū 7600 series
• Tōkyō Metro 07 series
• Tōkyō Metro 05 series
• Keiō 8000 series
• Keiō 7000 series
• Tōyō Rapid 2000 series
• Keiō 6000 series
• Keiō 5000 series
• Keiō 3000 series
• Keiō 1000 series (Second)
• Tōkyō Metro 08 series
• Tōkyō Metro 01 series
• Tōkyō Metro 02 series
• Tōkyō Metro 03 series
• Odakyū 2000 series
• Odakyū 1000 series
• Odakyū 3000 series
• TX-1000 series
• TX-2000 series
• Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit 70-000 series
• Tōkyō Metro 8000 series

 Done

When the conversion is done, please leave a message on my talk page or delete the template yourself if your an admin when your done. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Line template discussion

I proposed to delete Template:Shin'etsu Main Line (Nagano) and the discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17#Template:Shin'etsu Main Line (Nagano). Please leave your comments either on that specific template or on division of line templates in general. --Sushiya (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fukushima (Fukushima) Station

The article was moved in this edit from "Fukushima Station (Fukushima)" to Fukushima (Fukushima) Station with the edit summary "To make the S-line template work the word Station must be the last in the title." Is this the usual naming convention? Fg2 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I left a note at the user's page regarding the rationale for moving. There are examples of other lines using the same template which don't require Station at the last word, and I suggested that the template be used correctly rather than compromising the naming convention to fit one implementation of the template. Neier (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed making the name fit the template was the tail wagging the dog; if there's a problem with a template it should be fixed or a new one written to work with established conventions. Even better that the template can already work with this convention. Fg2 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, firstly I apologise for causing so much trouble! I struggled for several hours with the S-Line template to try and make it work with Fukishima Station but without joy. It was late and I probably should have left it and come back fresh but I plunged on!

Earlier this year I started the S-Line/JRE template series and used it on the Aterazawa Line putting Infobox_Station on each and the line info. Of course the Aterazawa stations are all classically formed '{{{name}}} Station'. I would consider myself an experienced user of the S-Line template series.

Earlier this week I found that Geoking had created the S-Line/JR East template series. He and I discussed this and agreed that JR East was preferable to JRE. I went through and changed all my previous work, updated the JR East to include all my Aterazawa line stuff.

Following Neier's comments and reversions I went through the route he suggested. I believe that the Template:JR East stations is not functioning as expected and so all stations are being output as a #default not picking up their redirects or nihongo.

I will correct it before plunging on. Normally I would do this in a non-public way but with 3/4 templates involved this is hard so please be patient if you see an oddity. Cosnahang (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! the template Template:JR_East_stations was malformed. The initial switch statement had a 1 not 'station'. All now working correctly.

Do you think I should put the nihongo on a separate line or just not have it at all? Cosnahang (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have been overwriting some of your changes; but, I didn't get any edit conflicts. I found the same 1 -> station problem, once I knew where to look ({{JR East stations}}. I have two suggestions for that template, and that is to only list the stations which need DAB and let the default take care of itself; and, list the stations in alphabetic order. Reply about kanji below. Neier (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it, no worries. However the Osaka station part of JR West not JR East and so there is no name conflict in this template. With your permission I will revert it to plain Fukushima. Also which one of us should reinstate the aterazawa line changes you undid? Thanks :) Cosnahang (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. If I missed one, feel free to undo it. And, that's a good point about the two Fukushima's being on different systems. For DAB names, we just put all the old JNR group together; but, since the S-line formats by operator, it makes sense. Neier (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone disambiguate the links to Kōriyama Station from Fukushima Station (Fukushima) and Shin-Shirakawa Station? I tried but cannot understand how the s-line template works. --Sushiya (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The place to do the disambig is {{JR East stations}}. I added Kōriyama to the list. There are similar templates for other regional systems as well. Neier (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox & S-rail issues

I have slowly begun to put an Infobox station on each stations page and in that the appropriate S-line information. These issues have arisen:

S-Rail Station Names:

• Should they include the nihongo?
• If they do should it be on a separate line or is it acceptable to have them split over two lines?

Infobox Station:

• Disabled access page [3] shows the various attributes of the stations by line. To get a ADA wheelchair symbol I think the station should be wheelchair accessible (4th column from left).

Cosnahang (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid listing the Japanese. Each station article already has it (as do most of the line articles), and to list it on links like that would violate the WP:MOS-JA; although, you could make the argument that they are also in a list context... so, it may not be a 100% clear violation. Neier (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any need to have the Japanese line names included with the linked English names in these infoboxes? Looking at the recently-modified Shin-Kawasaki Station, for example, Japanese line names are included for both "Lines" and "Services". Not only does this go against the guidelines of WP:MOS-JA, but it also adds unnecessary information and bulk to the infobox, which is supposed to be just a concise summary. --DAJF (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Japanese line names from Template:JR East lines. --DAJF (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice a lot of new stations being added which is great!

If you need help setting up the s-line templates please ask for help here?

They really help navigation and fit in the infobox.

Also with most Japanese rail lines there is a line box with all the stations in (see Fukushima Station (Fukushima)

Lastly! (I must sound like a dragon! :) ) Grab the nihongo characters and pop them into Google Earth to get the coordinates of the station.

An enthusiast! Cosnahang (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chūō Line Rapid etc.

We now have Chūō Main Line, Chūō Line Rapid, and Chūō Rapid Line: three articles with substantial overlap in topic and duplication in content. Should we merge these or distinguish them in some way? Fg2 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the much larger Japanese Wikipedia articles, I would suggest to merge the content of the Chūō Line Rapid into the Chūō Rapid Line article. The former is only about a stopping pattern and could easily fit in the line article. I don't think a stopping pattern is particularly notable. Alex Sims (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the creator of the latter two articles is non-communicative, but I wish I could understood what the exact scope of the articles is so that I could help tidy them up accordingly. --DAJF (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Shuzenji Romney Railway

Hi All,

Hope this is the correct place to post this. I've noticed you have a page on the Shuzenji Romney Railway which I am currently researching.

Does anyone have any pictures that I could use for my research, or know anyone who has who I can get in touch with please?

Thanks Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbrynt (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regrets. But if I get there and photograph it, I'll post the results. Fg2 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems to me that article should be merged into one for Niji no Sato (about the park where it is located. That's the way the Japanese article is set up. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can get to the park that would be great. I'm especially interested in the locomotive 'Ernest W Twining'. Peterbrynt (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wards and special wards in information boxes

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Wards and special wards in information boxes I asked for comments about whether we should list, for example, Chiyoda as the ward or as the city in information boxes. Comments are welcome there. Fg2 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tōkaidō Main Line station articles

Hi all, member with a passing interest in Japanese railway stations here. Have had a go at creating a couple of articles to help with the station articles on the Tōkaidō Main Line. I made Yui and Higashi-Shizuoka, using existing articles as guidelines, and I was wondering if they hold up as OK articles before I start making any more. Any advice or feedback would be awesome! Cheers. Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to Higashi-Shizuoka Station, but they look good. Thanks for creating them. There is no need to include Japanese years (Heisei etc) for dates, and it looks like these were added to a number of station articles only recently. Also, I removed the statement about Higashi-Shizuoka being the newest station in Shizuoka, as Aino (built for the 2002 World Cup) is definitely more recent - if not the newest. Keep up the good work! --DAJF (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the feedback! You're totally right about Aino of course - I should have remembered that one as I use it every time I go to Ecopa! Will start up a few more articles when I get time. Will try get some pictures too, as I use the line most days.Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to yesterday's work, in researching Shimizu station I discovered that until 1984 there was a branch line running through the port area of the city, and am keen to make an article using the Japanese articles as a basis. It all takes time, but will try to get it done when I get a free few hours. I also created Kusanagi (JR) (which led in turn to creating Kusanagi for the Shizuoka Railway!). One thing I was wondering is that when using the 'Adjacent stations' box on the Tokaido Mail Line station articles if it was possible to avoid the disambiguation pages as I get with Kusanagi and Shimizu and head directly to the required article? Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Flicker signals?

The article Japanese railway signals refers to "flicker signals" (see the animated GIF illustrating signal sequences). Is this standard English terminology for blinking lights, or is there a better term for these? Fg2 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"pass" in Adjacent Stations box

The Adjacent Stations box is a great thing for station articles, but I have an issue with how it is currently implemented in many articles. Take Kintetsu Yao Station, for example. I feel there is no need to show the express and rapid express (limited express trains also run through this station and pass, and they are not shown, so I don't know why the other expresses are). At first glance, the colors (who Kintetsu riders would be very familiar with) and the names of the types of trains give the impression that the trains stop there. I feel that putting passing trains in the Adajacent Stations box would be like if the station timetable included entries for what time various types of express trains passed through the station...this would lead to undue confusion.

In my opinion, if readers want to see which stations that the various types of express trains stop at, they will be looking at the Stations table on the article for the line (Kintetsu Osaka Line, in this case), as opposed to the station article. I suggest that a given station's Adjacent Stations box should only contain entries for the types of trains that actually stop there. I have implemented this in (most) of the station articles/stubs for the Kintetsu Yamada Line, Toba Line, and Shima Line. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmaru (talk • contribs)

I'm still of the minority opinion that while physical adjacentness (substitute a real word with the same meaning, if you wish) is important, we don't need to document multiple sets of adjacent stations in that box, just because a particular line has more than one type of service. Having gotten that bit of soap-boxery out of the way, I agree with Manmaru that services which don't stop at a particular station definitely have no purpose in that station's box. Neier (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any station that exceptionally needs "pass" line? If not, we can simply eliminate it from all boxes by editing {{j-rserv}} template. --Sushiya (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of eliminating all, I edited the template to clarify the meaning of "pass." --Sushiya (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal of new naming rules for railway line articles

Articles for non-JR railway lines are commonly named in the form of Operator Name Line Name (like Seibu Ikebukuro Line -- "Seibu" is the operator and "Ikebukuro Line" is the line name). This format follows the way of Japanese Wikipedia and how the lines are usually referred to in Japanese language. However, I think there are some problems in this convention:

1. It is difficult to distinguish the line name from the article title.
2. It requires many pipings to refer the line properly.
3. There is no reason to apply different naming rules for JR and private lines.
4. Article names tend to become too long.

So, I would like to propose a new section in WP:MOS-JP, replacing the present (de facto) naming convention:

Railway and subway lines

• The default name is X Line, without the name of operator.
• When necessary, disambiguate by operator name in case of private lines: Y Line → Y Line (Operator), or by city name in case of municipal subway: Z Line → Z Line (City).

This is just my idea. Your comments are welcome. --Sushiya (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to change the current format. The main reason is that Operator name + Line name is the format widely used in Japanese and in Japanese Wikipedia, so removing the operator name will reduce clarity. I don't see that this arrangement causes any particular problems on Wikipedia, and removing the operator name will result in messy titles such as Main Line (Keisei) and Main Line (Nankai). Sorry, but I don't see any reason to change the current situation. --DAJF (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is fine. It would certainly help fix ugly names of railways that only own one line like Ise Railway Ise Line or Iga Railway Iga Line. I think this rule should only apply to the titles of the articles but in prose, I think it is sometimes still best to say "JR ~~ Line" or "(Private Railway) ~~ Line", or something similar when linking to train lines in other articles.

I have some questions though:

• Shall we keep the Operater Name + Line name scheme included in the first sentence of each article: For example "The Suzuka Line (鈴鹿線, Suzuka-sen), officially called the Kintetsu Suzuka Line (近鉄鈴鹿線, Kintetsu Suzuka-sen), is a railway line in......"?
• What about when a private railway has a "Main Line"? For example, Hiroden Main Line. I don't think "Main Line (Hiroden)" is an acceptable name. If a line has a generic name (like "Main Line", "Loop Line", etc), shall we keep the existing (de facto) namimg scheme based on spoken Japanese (ie, Hiroden Main Line) in these cases?
• For rail lines that need the railway company's name written, should it use the proper name (ie, "Central Japan Railway Company", "Nagoya Railroad") or their shortened names ("JR Central"...or maybe just "JR", "Meitetsu")? I think the shortened names are used the vast majority of the time in real life, but of course the other is more "official". I noticed that Kintetsu is officially "Kintetsu" now but most private railways are still identified by their longer name even if it very rarely used by the company itself (like Nagoya Railroad)...perhaps this is a different isssue though.

But overall, I support the renaming of the private railway line articles as suggested, especially in cases like Ise Railway Ise Line. Manmaru (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. Seems consistent with other naming conventions. BilabialBoxing (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There will be Main Line (Keisei) but not Main Line (Nankai). Nankai Main Line will be retained as is because the operator name is an integral part of the line name. This is the situation I pointed out in No. 1 above.

According to ja:本線, there are nine lines named Main Line in Japan (exclusing those do not have their own articles in Japanese Wikipedia): Main Line (Toyama Chihō Railway), Main Line (Kurobe Gorge Railway), Main Line (Keisei), Main Line (Keikyū), Main Line (Sagami Railway), Main Line (Ohmi Railway), Main Line (Hanshin), Main Line (Sanyō), and Main Line (Hiroden). Format of operator name may be further discussed. As we already have Main Line (NJ Transit), Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) and Main Line (Pennsylvania Railroad), I think the format of Main Line (Operator) is not so strange. --Sushiya (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree "Nankai Main Line" should stay the way it is. But I prefer a system that uses the same standard, so I don't think we should have some main line articles being "~~ Main Line" and others being "Main Line (~~)". If there are nine non-JR main lines in Japan, then I think all nine should have the same naming format. If Nankai Main Line stays in the "~~ Main Line" format, the others should remain that way as well. Manmaru (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid parentheticals if at all possible. I agree with Manmaru. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be changing any official names, such as Nankai Main Line; and, as an extension of that, I also support the notion that we should avoid parentheticals if possible. Despite the wording of the style page for station names, the defacto convention has been to use official names like Keikyū Kawasaki Station, or Keiō Hachiōji Station. I don't see a compelling reason to change from that. Neier (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Keikyū Kawasaki Station and Keiō Hachiōji Station articles faithfully follow the naming rules for stations because their official names include the operator names. On the other hand, Nishinomiya Station (Hanshin) and Uji Station (Keihan) cannot be "Hanshin Nishinomiya Station" and "Keihan Uji Station" because their official names do not include the operator names. My proposal is to apply this strictness to the line names. Please remember that the Nankai Main Line's official name (used in, for example, JTB Timetable) is "Nankai Main Line" while the Keisei Main Line's official Name is just "Main Line". --Sushiya (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Station article headings

I am just fixing up some capitalisations, but i can see that there are different varieties of standard headings (station structure, station layout,layout for example) for the various articles. Let me have a standard list and I will fix them up. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39 20 May 2008 (GMT).

I don't think there is any documented standard anywhere, but I would try and standardize on "Station layout". "Station structure" was probably a direct translation by a Japanese native. Thanks for doing all that tidying-up work! --DAJF (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using just "Layout", as I feel the "station" is kind of redundant, but I agree that "Station layout" is certainly better than "Station structure"...either "Layout" or "Station layout" is OK I'd say. "Adjacent stations" and "Lines" are two more headings that are widely used and can be considered standard. Recently I've been adding headings "Usage" and "Surrounding area", typically just stubs to be filled in later. "Surrounding area" is my translation of 「駅周辺」 and I think it's sufficient but other suggestions are welcome. Thanks Rich for helping to fix up our mess! Manmaru (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using "Environs" as I think it's a more descriptive. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)