Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oslo Metro lines/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [1].

List of Oslo Metro lines[edit]

Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.—Chris!c/t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of historic reasons, there are ten lines, that are the physical infrastructure, and six services, that are the operating numbers. The latter has changed several times in the course of history, while the former has been constant. A (physical) line may have one or more service numbers, while each service operates two lines, plus the Common Tunnel. I have made a slight rewording in the first paragraph that might make this clearer, but perhaps more is needed. Perhaps a new map (as I discuss below) could make it clearer. Although the system is logical as such, it breaches with the way metros are normally lined (with the service and physical infrastructure bearing the same name), so the Oslo-method seems to be confusing to people. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the service and the physical lines are separated. This is a bit odd, but ok I understand now.—Chris!c/t 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks good, but some questions: Support, all questions have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to History of Oslo Metro lines?
  1. There is the article History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro that has much more detailed information about the history (which is better described in text, and also covers other areas, such as operation, rolling stock, politics etc). This list is an attempt to make a easy overview of the numerical values of each line, which is not discussed at any length (and at least not systematically) in the history article. It just donned on me as I am writing this that I could have added the number of stations to each line, at the time of each expansion. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I guess my initial confusion resulted from mixing "lines" with "service".bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you still add the number of stations to each line at the time of each expansion? bamse (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is the Common Tunnel a "line"? If yes, the sentence: "They are chronologically sorted by the date of the first section of line to open.", appears to be not true.
    The Common Tunnel is both a line and a tunnel. I cannot see how the statement is untrue, since the first part of the Common Tunnel opened in 1928, after the Kolsås Line (1924) and before the Sognsvann Line (1934). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Don't know what I was looking at then, but it appeared not to be ordered by date. Must have been late... bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The following sentence might be confusing: "If only one or two stations on the line are served by an additional service, it is omitted." I can see the reason for omission, but maybe there is a better way to phrase it, or add a footnote for explanation.
    Changed to "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of adding a reason for the omittance. If it is not confusing to anybody else it is fine with me though. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also in the "List" section, you probably mean "column" instead of "row" and "last" -> "4th".
    Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why do you use stars and blue background to mark light rail services? Is the whole network already officially called Metro even though some of the lines still are light rails?
    It is common to mark such things with both on lists (or so it is on other FLs). The blue is used to color-code to make it easy to see, and the astrix is to help monochrome browsers or colorblind readers to also understand the information, or so I presuem
    I see. OK. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Light rail vs. metro is a matter of discussion in sources. Prior to 1993, the metro and the light rail were independent systems, and prior to 1987 there was not even a transfer station. After 1995, all the trains serving the light rail operate through the Common Tunnel and onwards to places on the metro system. All the light rail lines have been closed for upgrade, and when they are reopened, will have metro standard. This mixing of metro and light rail is therefore now an issue of the past. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand the lead section correctly, it will be an issue of the past in 2014, when the last light-rail has been converted. It seems to be a matter of definition, so it is fine with me. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kolsås and Holmenkoll Lines will be upgraded to metro standard (just like four other lines previously), so this will not be an issue. I think is says so fairly clearly in the lead, but perhaps I am wrong. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I cannot find the Common Tunnel in the map. Is it the dotted line close to Carl Berners plass? Since it seems important, could it be labeled in the map. It would also be good to have the various lines in different colors in the map.
    That would require me to make a new map from scratch in .svg, which might take some time. Let me look into the issue. The map in question is the best on the Commons right now, is geographically accurate, has the name of all the branches (but as you comment, not the Common Tunnel), and includes both mainline railway and the tramway. Unfortunately, it is in .jpg, so it is virtually impossible to edit, and is from 2005, while the Ring Line had yet to be completed (the dotted line). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have the original (background) map without the lines? I guess simple edits like completing the ring line and marking the tunnel can be done even on jpg. Also service "6" is missing and "4" runs on a different route if this map is correct. The present map should be marked as "historic" in the article and the image description. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have anything except the map you see on this article, plus a future map and this. There is also this, but it lacks line names. Let me fiddle in Inkscape and see what I can produce. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the list contains the extension of the lines, maybe you could even have several maps: the present map (marked as "2005 map" in the caption) and the new map which shows the present status.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added another map, that is up to day what concerns service numbers and lines, is geographically accurate and in vector format. It includes important stations and line names, but lacks the mainline train and tram lines, plus water/settlement information. To show how the metro lays in the cityscape, I have kept the old map, and made a not that it is pre-2006. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If this map is correct, service "5" ends in Storo and services "4" and "6" circle around the ring line before returning to Bergkrystallen and Kolsaas respectively. In your map it seems as if "4,5,6" all end in Nydalen. Which is correct? Maybe it is worthwhile (not essential) to indicate somwhow in the map that all lines use the common line. Also you could mark the tunnel as dotted line or something. bamse (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To start with the last remark, the way the map is constructed I would have to start from scratch to give the tunnels a dotted line. I have simply converted a bitmap of the line i found on the Commons to an object, which does not allow me to manipulate the lines as I wish. I am trying to figure out how to extract the paths from OpenStreetMap so I can edit it properly, and can produce a much more sophisticated map, but I am only a novice at vector graphics, so it may be beyond the time frame of this FLC to produce such a map. As for the 4/5/6-issue, I see your point, and can move the numbers to below where it says "Ring Line". Hopefully that will be a little more accurate, and I can add a comment in the caption. Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "4" and "6" under the ring line are better, but "5" ends in Storo (does not circle the ring line) as far as I understand from the map I linked to above. I was under the impression that you had lines in the svg. If they are non-line objects, I agree that it is not easy to make the line dotted. Actually it would have been sufficient to make a schematic map (with straight lines) for 2009, as you already have the 2006 map showing the lines in their environment. If you feel energetic, you could make such a schematic map, or ask at the graphic lab for help. If not, I'd be happy with the present map after the "5" has been fixed. bamse (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The numbers are located about where Storo is, and line 5 terminates there, while services 4 and 6 change their destinations signs between Storo and Nydalen. I don't quite know what to do to clarify it further, although I can, as you say, get it more accurate when I start again with a schematic or map. and include all stations. Arsenikk (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ok. bamse (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Just out of curiosity, it is still not possible to have tables with "rowspan" sortable on wikipedia, is it?
    Yes and no. You can disable sorting in certain rows entirely, but it would disrupt the ordering of other rows. So, if not necessary, rowspan should be avoided.—Chris!c/t 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I have followed your advice or made a comment about each item. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I replied above. One strange thing surprised me. Was service number 6 really started after 3 (and before 4, 5)? bamse (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current service numbers date from 2003, when the Ring Line opened. Prior to that, they were mixed with the street tram system, and were inconsistently numbered from 1 to 16. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, quite confusing the Oslo metro. BTW, if possible, can you specify the starting point ("from") of the metro conversion of the Kolsås Line in the table entry: "Metro standard to Åsjordet"? Also if the metro standard for the Røa Line is from Lijordet to Østerås it should say so: "Metro standard Lijordet – Østerås". When do you put the words "Metro standard" in the section column? It seems a bit arbitrary to me. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out; I've specified all the metro standard sections. I've also added half a sentence to the key section to try to clarify that all white fields involve metro standard. To answer your last question: the list contains the time of the conversion to metro standard, so lines that have never been converted to metro don't have such a listing (either because they haven't opened yet or because they were built as such). Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it now. "Metro Standard" spelled out in the table means that the whole line was converted. Correct? bamse (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.

  • The caption to the network map talks about the T-bane but you haven't mentioned anywhere else that this is the local name of the metro.
  • "The Østensjø and Lambertseter Lines were converted with the opening in 1966." Not sure what opening this is referring to.
  • I think that Bamse has already touched upon this but I think that the merged cells to the right of some of the 'Metro Standard' cells are not what is intended.

Boissière (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit and feedback. I've fixed up the text per point one and two. Regarding the last, I cannot see anything wrong with the numbers, since no metro standard upgrade has changed the length of any line, although they sometimes have reduced the number of stations. I can of course merge the cells to the right, but in my opinion this visualizes that the length, and if applicable, the number of stations, has not changed. But I do see that this style "breaks" the blue rows, so perhaps what you suggest is not so bad. The numerical values are all correct. Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list now has an additional column with the length of each extension. Arsenikk (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife

Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.

  • The lead states that there are 90 stations. In the list, I added up the number of stations on each line as of the most recent upgrade. So I added the 20 for Holmenkoll, the 10 for Røa, and so on for all ten lines, reaching a total of 92. Does this mean that only two stations are on more than one line? Or have I done something silly? If there indeed are only two stations served by multiple lines, maybe it would be worth naming them?
  • On a related note, am I right in believing that the bottom column of each line is the one that gives the information about the current situation of the line?
  • Ref 8 should be marked as (in Norwegian).
  • References 9 and 27 are exactly the same.
  • Inline citation needed for "highest ridership" claim in the last paragraph of the lead.
  • "The last two lines are in the process of upgrade, with the Holmenkoll and Kolsås Lines planned to open in 2011 and 2014, respectively." Are the lines closed until 2011 and 2014 respectively, or are they open but using light rail?
  • "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." This is a strange question to ask, but am I right to take this sentence literally (i.e. that any service that serves three or more stations is included?). If so that's fine and no amendment is needed, I just want to be sure that the statement is accurate.

Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I have made some adjustments to the text to adress the language, duplicated ref, inline citation issue (it was cited, but I added another that is probably a lot more accurate). As for your questions, the reason that there are 92 stations is that the Lamberseter Line was incorrectly stated (it said 9 instead of 8); the more problematic station is Majorstuen, that was built as the terminus of the Holmenkoll Line in 1898, and still was that at the last time of the line extension. Since then, the station became the western-most line of the Common Tunnel (and thereby not any more on the Holmenkoll Line). When the table is updated after the upgrades, the station will as such not be listed. Your assumption in the second point (about the bottom line) is correct. However, the Holmenkoll Line and parts of the Kolsås Line exist, but are closed. Regarding your last question, the reason for this is that for instance service six runs from the Common Tunnel, then serves two stations on the Røa Line before running along the Kolsås Line. Similarly, service 4 and 6 serve one station on the Grorud Line before branching off to the Ring Line. This is just an arbitrary choice to avoid giving the impression that services 6 serves the Grorud Line and the Røa Line, etc. Arsenikk (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WFCforLife (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Okay, plenty of images, but this is about the lines, so perhaps give prominence to the second image of where the lines geographically run. I think perhaps one or two fewer images from the lead would benefit the structure of the list.
  • Lambetseter Line is overlinked in the lead.
  • "trains could for the first time run" - "trains could, for the first time, run..."
  • "light rail to metro standard" what does this mean to a non-expert?
  • Ah, you explain it three or four sentences later. I'd put it sooner.
  • I would not use white background for "metro standard" (not good for accessibility). I would say, unless specified otherwise, all lines are "metro standard".
  • Shouldn't ref 23 have an en-dash in the title rather than a spaced hyphen?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the feedback. The choice of a hyphen in ref 23 was because the sourced used that, but I've changed it. I removed the one image (that provides the most information, but has a slightly out-of-date numbering). The four remaining images each present a important aspect of the lines: underground, overground, a large station, a small station and a line while it was still a light rail. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Oslo_Metro_lines/archive1&oldid=1140185389"