Talk:Duri–Tangerang railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duri–Tangerang railway. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– Indonesian rail articles are named Aaa–Bbb railway. However, it appears that common practice for English-language articles is to use "Railway" (or Railroad) for company names, and "line" for articles that describe routes between two points. (Additionally, the terminuses should probably be the city/town, rather than the train station unless there is ambiguity.) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I do a Google search the results overwhelmingly come back to Wikipedia. Most of the remainder (in English) are moovitapp schedules. Many of the Indonesian results are untranslated Google Books. This makes it difficult to make a convincing argument for either. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what OktaRama2010 says is accurate, then there are translation issues between Indonesian and English. To my understanding, WP:ID uses "railway/railway line" for what is generally accepted to be a "route", and "railway network" for what is called a "line" in English. We probably need someone who is fluent on both languages to provide more clarity. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly[how?] "railway" is common name of Indonesian railway lines (and many countries using "railway" not "line" like Germany not English AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC) and the Netherlands not English AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)) and "line" is used for metro or light rail. (also ping HyperGaruda, Budi2darmawan, Rizal Febri.) OktaRama2010 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure yet – I'd like to see nom at least point out what they are called in sources. The rationale based on consistency is not enough. I agree that the city/town names probably make more sense than station names in these, but again I'd like to hear what sources say. This is nom's job to present a source-based rationale. In the case of Jakarta Kota–Manggarai, it appears to me that both Kota and Manggarai are stations in Jakarta, so this rationale seems flawed. And "Kidul" means the "south" station in Anyer? Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: In Jakarta i suggest Jakarta Kota–Manggarai railway, Jatinegara-Manggarai railway merging to Jakarta railway, like in this Jakarta railway [id] about jakarta railway segments, Yeah kidul is south and lor is north. OktaRama2010 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case of merging, I'd pick Rail transport in Jakarta as a title instead. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular preference for using one over the other, but I would like to point out that common practice is hard to find in Australian (=anglophone) railway lines, e.g. Category:Railway lines in Western Australia, which shows railways, railway lines, rail corridors etc. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There really isn't a good standard for these cases where the line doesn't have a proper name or a specific qualifier. The German "bahn" is often translated as "Railway" or "railway"; that's accurate for a former company but for physical infrastructure "line" or "railway line" would be better English. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Draft:Jatinegara-Manggarai railway has appeared in Draft: space on 30 June, moved from main space, and seems to have been submitted for WP:AFC review. Since this discussion is not closed, and since the nominator has made the move, please may I ask for clarification of the rationale? Please ping me in any reply. Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: it was moved following Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line because it's an even shorter stub, and both use the same, single reference. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AlgaeGraphix, Thank you. I seem not to be able to spot the consensus for this move. Are you able to assist me with that? I ask because it is an unusual thing to move an article with a reasonably long main space history into Draft space. I understand WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, but neither of those seem to apply. Fiddle Faddle 06:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: I suggest you ask Mccapra why they unilaterally moved Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line. When I attempted to restore it, OktaRama2010 moved it back with the reason "no consensus for move [to main space]". AlgaeGraphix (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AlgaeGraphix, by your pinging them I will consider them to have been asked. One non consensus move does not justify another, however. So why, please, has this article under discussion Draft:Jatinegara-Manggarai railway been moved from main space to draft? Why not simply reinstate it in main namespace and let this discussion here conclude? Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I moved Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line out of main space because it appeared in the new page review queue and when I reviewed it I found only a single ref which in my view was not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, What am I missing? It article history suggests not should not have appeared in that queue. It is stated to have been created on 12:47, 16 November 2013 Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the article was redirected on 26 June. Another editor reverted the redirect and reverting a redirect brings an article into the NPP queue. The version I draftified had no sources at all. Mccapra (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a conflict of opinion. Mccapra said Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line needs multiple reliable independent sources. On the other hand, Timtrent feels that the nearly-identical Draft:Jatinegara-Manggarai railway looks like a perfectly heathy stub of its class. Which is correct? WP:Drafts or WP:Stubs? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlgaeGraphix, I see no difference of opinion. Consider, simply, a stub which contains broadly one fact which has a reference to back up that single fact. The stub is not unreferenced and may or may not be notable, depending upon the fact. All we need to look at is does the stub pass WP:GNG however short it is. If it does, then ity shod be in and remain in main article space where it stands a chance, in this case small, of other editors improving it.
Alternatively we can consider the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no special policies on notability for stubs. A railway needs to meet the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or possibly, WP:GEOFEAT. Anyway I was only here to explain why I draftified it a while back, so I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with it now. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Do you agree, then, that both Draft:Jatinegara-Manggarai railway and Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line should be returned to main space? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlgaeGraphix, I see no reason for them to have left. They were taking their chances there perfectly happily like good little stubs Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, on a WP:CONSISTENT basis, all things being equal. But they might not be, if the sources (in English) are overwhelmingly doing something unusual and particular with regard to Indonesian transit/transport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This !vote is the only edit this Indonesian IP has ever made on WP:EN. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duri–Tangerang_railway&oldid=1201696333"