This is an archive of past discussions about Beijing Subway. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can you clarify whether the proposed length of 561km by 2015 refers to the proposed length of the subway alone or the suburban/subway combined? Cheers. --Marianian (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Number of Stations in the Beijing Subway System Today (2009 Nov)
This article says that there are a total of 147 stations, with footnote 1 stating that "Stations connected with transfers are counted separately." The "147" figure is actually a bit confusing, despite the fact that there is footnote 1 to it. I don't think we should count the "transfer stations" more than once. There are transfer stations that connect 2 or 3 lines...and if we count them 2 times or 3 times, we really are mis-representing the true number of stations in the system.
My suggestion is to revise the sentence(s) to say that there are a total of 126 stations in the Beijing Subway system (counting the transfer stations once).
Joechu (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your concern about having an overinclusive count of the subway stations is valid, but counting stations connected by transfers as one station would be underinclusive. This is because in some cases transfer stations are literally separate train stations for separate lines, on separate platforms, on different levels, and built at different times but are connected by extended walkways (the transfer). The most notorious example is Xizhimen, where the Line 2 station underground is so far from the Line 13 station on the surface, that the transfer takes a 8-minute walk up and down stairs and through outdoor covered passage ways built on the sidewalk. See[1] and [2] And this was after the completion of Line 4's Xizhimen station, located between the two, which affords transfer riders a slight short-cut through Line 4's station hall. Prior to Line 4's completion in 2009, transfers from Line 2 to 13 at Xizhimen took 15 minutes. See[3] Calling them one station would be misleading.
In most cases, stations for separate lines connected by transfers were built separately and at different times. Only in two instances, Sihui and Sihui East, where Line 1 and Batong Line run parallel are two lines literally sharing the same platforms. In those two instances, a very good case could be made that those two lines in those two stops share the same station. But to describe every transfer station that way mischaracterizes the reality. In my opinion, to carve out the exceptions would be more difficult than being slightly overinclusive in the general statement, which is modified by a footnote explanation. ContinentalAve (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You certainly know a lot about the Beijing subway. Thanks for the reply. I have to express a somewhat different opinion however. Counting the "same" station (however many lines it connects) more than once is counter-intuitive. The fact that the platforms are far apart or on different floors or were built at different times, for instance, really should not matter at all. These far-apart platforms have the same station name and are represented as one station on the map. My two cents worth. Joechu (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Joechu. Perhaps there is a technical meaning of "station" of which I am unaware, but I think that in the mind of the general reader (certainly in my mind) train stations routinely include platforms spaced far apart, in different buildings and on different levels. If, within the train/subway system (ie. on official maps, on tickets etc), these spread out platforms are defined as a single station then that is how we should refer to them. For me Xizhimen is clearly a single station. 219.238.118.226 (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no technical definition of what constitutes a "station" aside from how the subway authorities themselves count their stations. In the case of Beijing, the official count has always treated stations linked by transfers as separate stations in their count. On the Beijing Subway's official website, the overview of the subway (dated Sept. 2008) still gives 123 as the total number of stations (that counts treats transfer stations separately). See [4] Official news reports since the opening of Line 4, cite the 147 number. See e.g. [5] and [6]. I have not found any sources that cite the 126-station figure. The Shanghai Metro counts stations connected by transfers separately, except in the case of stations on Lines 3 and 4 where the two trains share the same tracks and platform. Whatever the counting method, it's going to take some subjective interpretation. Switching from 147 to 126 outright will confuse people because the 126 does not appear anywhere. To accommodate your concerns, which I've said are valid, I've inserted the 126 station-count to the fact box and the footnote to the station count total in the body of the article. This way readers can decide for themselves what the total station count is. ContinentalAve (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A missing subway line
Hi,
I read on the Chinese news that there is a subway line going directly from Beijing Railway Station to Beijing west railway station. There is no stop in between. According to the website below, this line is under construction since 2006. So I guess the project is near completion. The total lengths of this line is 9.16km. Also there is very little information available on the opening date of this line. Any info would be appreciated.
I couldn't find it on the Beijing subway map in Wikipedia. I think it is an omission. Could someone confirm and add it on the map?
Hi Luke, you must be referring to an underground railway link that the Ministry of Railways is building to connect the Beijing Railway Station and the Beijing West Railway Station. It is not a subway line but an actual rail link for passenger trains to stop at both stations. It is not being planned or built by the Beijing Subway and therefore excluded from this article. According to this 2009 article, the link won't be completed until 2012. http://news.sohu.com/20091027/n267784199.shtmlContinentalAve (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The removal of the Daxing Line
Recently, the reference and link to the Daxing Line of the Beijing Subway was removed, ostensibly in response to reports that the line will merge into Line 4 and operate seamlessly in late September. Those reports may be accurate, but the removal of all traces of the Daxing Line article is premature, especially when many news articles continue to refer to the line as the "Daxing Line". In the interest of maintaining continuity, I think the Daxing Line name should be restored, even if in parenthesis as Line 4 Extension (Daxing Line). The Daxing Line article should also be restored because the replacement section in Line 4's article does not adequately address the history of the Daxing Line, how it was developed as an independent line and how its operations were given to the Beijing MTR JV and so forth. The Daxing Line article should remain as a free-standing article even after its merger with Line 4. In the future, the Daxing Line article will only document the history of its independent existence and will note that the line is now part of Line 4. Thank you for your attention. ContinentalAve (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Reversion from the Map-Line Table Combo
Pasted below is a recent revision that combined the map of lines in operation with the table of the subway lines in operation. I have removed this combination and restored the previous separate map and table format for the following reasons:
The addition of color names to the line color column is unnecessary and potentially confusing. Beijing's subway lines are not named by their colors, and there is no reason to draw attention to the color names. What would be more helpful is to use colors in the map and table that match the real colors used in the subway. Right now, the red in the table is off-red, not the primary red used in the subway. Line 5's color should be purple or violet, not maroon or magenta. Line 8 should be green, not sea green. Line 13's color is really orange.
I believe that the table is easier understood by listing Batong right underneath Line 1, so that reader can make the connection that the two lines, sharing the same color, are actually extensions of each other. The same should apply when the Daxing Line is added to the table. It should be inserted underneath Line 4. This may break up the lines' numerical order , but helps to orient the non-numerical lines in a more logical way.
The terminal column of the table below removed references to the district in which the terminals of each line is located. This is a regrettable omission. Terminals tend to be located on the periphery of the city and are themselves not prominent places, so most readers are unfamiliar with where they're. Adding the district names helps the reader orient the location of the terminal stations, and in turn, the rough trajectory of the line through the city.
I believe that I have an explanation for the adjustment of colours. The Beijing Subway article on the Chinese Wikipedia adheres strictly to a colour scheme that improves colour distinguishment for the visually impaired, according to the editors there. The map is also their work. Hence, it seems that some editors are trying to do the same here. As for the others, I don't really have a say over it. Are there any other views? NoNews!02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? South Gate of Forest Park is located in Chaoyang District. Xiaocun, I believe, is located in Fengtai District on the opposite side of the city. Most line terminals are located on the outskirts of the city and take on place names that are unfamiliar to most Wikipedia readers. The presence of district names in the table is designed to help readers get a sense of where the line terminals are located and how the line runs. As more lines are built, the subway map will be so crowded that it will be more difficult for readers to pick out particular lines. By looking at the table and getting a general sense of where a particular line's terminals are located, readers will then be able to find the line on the map more easily.ContinentalAve (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Subway Construction Timetable
I believe it would be better if the construction schedule would be structured similarly to the Shanghai or Guangzhou metro which is ordered by opening time, as opposed to line by line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terramorphous (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Article Rating
This article was given a quality rating of B in 2006. The article has been enhanced and expanded significantly by quite a few contributors in the years since but its grade has not been reassessed. It would be appropriate to submit the article for a re-grade. ContinentalAve (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Schema showing the development of the Beijing Subway update
Numbered lines are usually in "core city subway network", while the named lines are the "suburban subway lines" which many are essentially extensions of the core city lines. e.g.
Well, I am (now) the updater of the system map and the plan map. As the system expands, the resolution of the map have to increase, making text unclear under a lower resolution like 800px. So I want to make monolingual map for en, zh-hans, and zh-hant. It is also a solution to the traditional-simlified Chinese problem. A SVG version will also be available for translation. What do you think? --DS - fax04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I'm generally in favour of multilingualism, and having a single file can make maintenance easier, but the image as it stands is already difficult to read, and that can only get worse as complexity increases.
Capitalization of station names in Pinyin
It is worth noticing that the official names of stations that appears on route maps and in stations are using capital letters for Pinyin. For instance, in all metarials Yuanmingyuan Park appears to be YUANMINGYUAN Park (also note that the word 'park' isn't capitalized). Are we going to make this (although seemingly wierd) characteristic in Wikipedia? --DerekHe (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is normal for words to be capitalised on maps and sign posts but not in other cases. For example, look at any map or sign post and you will see CHINA and BEIJING but normal writing is China and Beijing. The addition of the word "Park" on the end seems to be just an aid for tourists since the "yuan" translate as either "park" or "garden" also the Chinese only has one 园 in it not two. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Page doesn't render properly in Chrome browser
Seems to work fine in Internet Explorer, but the map and line descriptions are super-imposed upon themselves in Chrome. Could be a Chrome issue, but someone more knowledgeable about these things might want to take a look at it?--134.146.0.43 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Now fixed. The issue was connected to the "fare cards" images that display to the right of the map. There is not enough width for both the map and the two fare card images to display sided by side. By changing the two fare card images to display vertically, the problem was resolved and the page now shows correctly. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Beijing Subway logo.svg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Could someone maybe add a section on the assignment of the line numbers? I've always found it odd (as have any non-Beijinger Chinese people I've asked) that the line numbers are assigned in such an odd fashion (as opposed to most cities, which assign them based on the order in which they are opened). Most (including myself) initially assumed it was the order the went into planning/construction, until I pointed out that "line 3" was skipped long ago, only going into planning very recently. If anyone knows how they are chosen, I think that would make a very good addition to the article. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Estoy, there is a simple and a complex answer to your question. First the complex answer -- more than ten years ago, there was a grand plan that showed numerous subway and commuter rail lines labeled with various numbers and letters. See here At the time, only Lines 1 and 2 had been built, and city planners chose to build Line 13 next due to the availability of land. The other lines would presumably follow. But plans for some of those lines changed. For example, the Line 10 loop today used to consist of two "L" shaped lines, 10 and 11. Once Line 10 took over the loop, Line 11 was displaced. Many details of why that plan was not fully carried out are not publicized so it is difficult to write a coherent narrative. In addition, line numbers 3, 11 and 12 are presumably still being considered for other lines in the 2020 plan. Just two years ago, a new Line 16 was introduced and shows that 3, 11 and 12 are being considered for other roles. This leads to the simple answer, which is that as more lines come online, the more complete the numerical set becomes and less necessary a section on naming becomes. It used to very look strange with just 1, 2 and 13. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Even though it doesn't solve the issue of why they are so assigned, your answer does at least explain the origin of some, which is more than I've ever gotten anywhere else! Line 3 is the one that also trumps me, since as I said, it was skipped as soon as they started planning the chronologically-third line. Many others can potentially be explained away as being in planning at the time (as your example of line 11), but according to the article, as well as multiple other sources, line 3 has only very recently even begun to be planned. Guess it'll have to be put up there with the secret subway stations, as something that probably can't be fully explained or known. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Number of Stations in the Beijing Subway System Today (2013 Jan): 262 or 261?
The total number of stations currently in operation in the Beijing Subway, when stations connected by transfers are counted separately, is 261 according to some sources and 262 according to others. The discrepancy arises from whether the total number of stations attributed to the Daxing Line includes Gongyixiqiao. The Daxing Line is generally considered to run from Gongyixiqiao to Tiangongyuan and would therefore have 12 stations. This is the way the stations table in the article currently reports the station tally for the Daxing Line, leading to a grand total of 262. Since Gongyixiqiao is also on Line 4 some tallies (including the station table in the Chinese Wikipedia article) count that station toward Line 4's total but not the Daxing Line's total.
This leaves the Daxing Line with 11 stations and a grand total of 261.
This discrepancy brings us back to the discussion from November 2009 (see above) about whether to count stations connected by transfers as a single station for purpose of the tally. At that time, my inclination was to count the connected stations separately since many stations such as Xizhimen and Dongzhimen were connected by long corridors. As the system has expanded, however, I am inclined to count stations connected by transfers as a single station. Doing so would make the station count (1) more straightforward -- it is simply the number of uniquely named stations and would correspond to the number stations marked on the system map (2) less misleading -- as the system expands and the number of transfer stations increase the disparity in the station tally under the two methods will grow and (3) more able to avoid the ambiguities created by the Line 4-Daxing through train service. (The reason why some of those tallies have deliberately left Gongyixiqiao out of the Daxing Line total (I think) is because the Beijing MTR runs through train service on the combined Line 4-Daxing Line, and Gongyixiqiao does not actually serve as a terminus. To the extent Gongyixiqiao permits travelers to switch trains from the partial Line 4-Daxing service loop (spanning 25 stations from Anheqiao North to Xingong) to the full Line 4-Daxing service loop (spanning all 35 stations from Anheqiao North to Tiangongyuan) and can therefore be called a transfer station, so can of the other 24 stations in the partial service loop. It'd be very misleading to say that Line 4 has 24 stations all of which are transfer stations and the Daxing Line has 12 stations 2 of which are transfer stations. Some have proposed counting Line 4 and Daxing as a single line with 35 stations. But as we discussed before, doing so would obscure the Daxing designation, which remains part of the Beijing Subway's line designation scheme.
Since Beijing Subway authorities are trying to build new stations with shorter transfers, the newer transfer stations are also more likely to keep platforms for different lines closer together and make the station more like a single station rather than two connected stations. Of course, we can always post the tallies from the two counting methods, but I think going forward it makes sense to post the tally from the single-station method as the default in the main body of the article.
To make the station tallies easier to compile as the system expands, it would very helpful to have a single numbered (and sortable) list of all stations in the Beijing Subway system. Such a list would it easier to check whether the tally includes a given station and avoid double counting. We currently have an excellent and up to date list of Beijing Subway stations which divides the stations by line. Would it be possible to add a full stations table to that article? ContinentalAve (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I do not quite see the problem. A station with parallel transfers such as National Library would still have two island platforms and hence should be counted as two stations. The only exception is Gongyixiqiao, which is really a single island platform, and there is no reason to count it as two stations. Hence, the total number of stations would be 261. Obviously, we still need to add footnote explaining the count, such as the one you added to the list of subways.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Topic 1: It's great that you brought this up, ContinentalAve. To be honest, I have never liked the idea of counting interchange stations as 2 stations. It is true, as you point out, that in places like Xizhimen or Xidan it takes forever to walk between lines, BUT where do you draw the line? "If have to walk more than 1.5 minutes, then it's 2 separate stations...". So in my opinion, interchange stations should be counted as 1 station. I think it's a much more natural approach, and it also eliminates the Gongyixiqiao problem.
Topic 2: And by the way, I volunteer to make the list you mention, the list of all the stations together (not separated by line). I can do it. Do you reckon it should be a separate article, or we should add it to the existing list article?
Topic 3: I think I will also use this opportunity, that you guys are reading this, to say one more thing that's on my mind: I don't like this artificial separation between line 4 and the Daxing line... it doesn't actually exist in reality. I take that line everyday, and really, there is nothing to make you think it's 2 separate lines. If I suggest merging the 2 articles, how upset would you be? :p Azylber (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with merging, assuming of course we have all proper redirects and explain clearly what is the relation between the lines.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your thoughtful replies.
Ymblanter, just so I understand what you're saying -- Under your definition of how to count subway stations, each stop on each subway line should count as a unique station irrespective of whether another subway line also has a stop at the same location unless the other subway line's trains happen to use the same tracks at that stop. In other words, even if two lines stop across the same platform from each other, they are still stopping at two different stations connected by a transfer. At National Library Station, where Lines 4 and 9 stop at the same platform, the station should still be counted as two stations, one for Line 4 and one for Line 9. Only when trains of two or more lines share the same tracks (not the same platform) should the stop count as a single, shared station. I suppose this is how other metro systems with different train services that share track distinguish transfer stations counted once from transfer stations counted more than once to reach their larger station count tallies. The problem is that these tallies give the impression that there are more stations in the system than meets the eye (overstating the number of stops on the map by 15%). For now, I will only say that (1) this method is less intuitive and (2) just because other metro system articles in Wikipedia use this method to reach higher station counts doesn't make it necessarily the better or more objective method. I will listen to other views.
Azylber, thanks for volunteering to create the station list (topic 2). I think it makes sense to place that table in the current stations list article, under its own subheading. Make it sortable so readers can sort the stations by type, date opened, line served, location and transfers. Sorting by transfers would effectively turn that table into a list of transfer stations. More versatile.
Topic 3, the merging of Lines 4 and Daxing is a bit more tricky. I agree that since the two lines operate largely as one, and are treated as such by the operator, Beijing MTR, the Wikipedia article should reflect this reality, especially the route list so that a reader riding a train on the line would not have to go to two different articles to find the full list of stations. This merger did occur in the past but was undone because it completely wiped out all mention of the Daxing Line and its own development history. The Daxing Line is still used in common parlance and should be readily searchable and recognizable for readers trying get information about the line. Chinese Wikipedia still has two separate articles but places the station list only in the Line 4 article. I think it'd be ideal if there could be a single article with histories and details of both lines so any reader who wanted to know about one line can learn about both. The title of this article should have the names of both lines, i.e. Line 4 - Daxing Line, Beijing Subway, so that it is clear the article is about a combined line. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my example of National Library, there are four tracks, which are located at the side of two island platforms. In my definition, these two platforms are the two stations (each of them being served by Line 4 and Line 9).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
At the National Library Station, north-bound Line 4 trains stop on the left side of this platform and north-bound Line 9 trains stop on the right side of this platform. Okay, I think you understand what I mean, but just to make this point visually. At the National Library Station, Lines 4 and 9 share the platform in the image above. And based on your definition of how to count stations, there are two stations in the image, one for Line 4 on the left and one for Line 9 on the right. I'm not making a normative point about your definition, just trying to verify that this is in fact what you mean. Because the next question concerns the Changying and Xinhua Dajie Stations on Line 6'seastern extension. As the diagram below shows, these four-platform stations will allow passengers to make transfers between express and local trains service on Line 6. Would these four-platform stations each count as "two stations" since they accommodate two different types of train service -- albeit both on Line 6 -- or would they each count as only one station? Line 6's express and local train scheme. ContinentalAve (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No, on the picture in my definition there is one station. There is also another Natl Library station, where Line 4 trains arrive from the north, and Line 9 trains depart. About Line 6, it is difficult to me to answer, I do not quite understand the scheme.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, are you saying each island platform should count as a unique station? At Nat'l Library one platform handles north bound Line 4 and 9 trains (pictured). The other platform handles south-bound Line 4 and 9 trains. If you click on the scheme, you will see an animation which may help you understand how express and local trains will operate on Line 6. ContinentalAve (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture is accidentally mine, and, indeed, I think in this case one island platform is one station, as they have individual infrastructure. In the case on one of the stations of Line 13 which has two platforms separated by a (rarely used) track, it is one platform. There could be of course more complicated things, like the second station of Changping line after the interchange has been completed - it probably stays one station despite having two island platforms.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Songjiazhuang Stations has parallel platforms for Lines 10 (foreground) and 5 (background) How about the platforms depicted in the above image of Songjiazhuang Station? You can see Line 10's platforms in the foreground and Line 5's in the background. The platforms are on the same level. Does this image depict one or two stations? ContinentalAve (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
For me, Xi'erqi are two stations, located on different levels. I do not have any hard feelings though, and I am fine if the transfer stations were counted as one station. I know that discussions for Moscow metro whether transfer stations were counted as one or two (or sometimes three and four) were running for a decade and people could not agree. There are for instance transfer stations there which have different names; there are transfer stations which have the same name and different design; there are stations with the same name and the same design (cross-platform). I think in the end it was decided that the only way to describe smth as a station is whether Moscow Metro describes it as a station, i.e. whether for instance the Chief of the station supervises one station of one line, or the whole transfer complex. In the particular case of Moscow, the chief was always supervising only one station, with the exception of three cross-platform transfer station where the chief was supervising both stations. I am not sure how it is organized in Beijing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
[8]: Daxing line starts at the north of the flyover of Gongyixiqiao (note: the station is in the north of the flyover), and integrates with Gongyixiqiao station of Line 4 (轨道交通大兴线全长约21.8公里，北端在南四环路公益西桥北侧与地铁4号线公益西桥站接轨, Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport, 2010), and
[9]: After the extension, the total length of the subway system will reach the number of 442km, with 261 stations and 36 transfers (Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport, 2012).
Gongyixiqiao station is counted only once, not because the two lines operates through service, but because the two lines are designed to operate through service. --DS - fax03:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly fine with counting Gongyixiqiao station as one station, thank for the info. However, in my view, we have more problems with other (not "through") transfer stations.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
One line plus one name equals one station. It's just counted like this, while it's not so convincing. --DS - fax09:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The table provides a nice and helpful list. And you made it so quickly. Great job! A few thoughts.
The "Comments" column has mostly blank space which could used to display more informative content such as the date each station opened. Commonly used notations such as "station not yet open" or "station permanently closed" could instead be indicated through row shading. See the gray shading in the lines table. More elaborate comments could be referenced to notes at the bottom of the table.
The table can't quite sort all of the transfer stations together. Perhaps a very narrow column needs to be created for "transfers" with -, 1, 2 or 3. The sorting of the table by Line(s) is a bit clunky. In the table for the list of lines in operations in the main [[Beijing Subway] article, I inserted span style="display:none" HIDDENTEXT /span codes to overcome this problem. The icon for Line 2, for example, has hidden text "02" before it, so that 02 comes before 10 in the ascending sort. See Help:Sorting
Could the rows' vertical height be condensed so more of them could be visible on one screen? It's a long table and we want to reduce reader scrolling.
Before you add more station pictures to the table, let's reconsider their utility. I am not quite sure about the helpfulness of these small images. Most station platforms look about the same (especially the newer ones with platform doors) so there isn't a ton of good comparative information conveyed by the thumb nails. A reader can click on the station link and see a much bigger picture of the station platform. The exterior entrances of the stations are more distinctive from one line to another but we don't have pictures for each station entrance. These images also make the rows fatter and demands greater scrolling.
It'd be helpful to have a non-sortable number list column on the far left, which would enable the reader to quickly determine the number of stations (counting transfer stations as one). I haven't mastered this technique, but here is a template: Template:Static column begin
Hi ContinentalAve, sorry I've taken a few days to get back to you. I wanted to make up my own mind first! Here are some comments:
1) 2 things here:
1.1) I don't like row shading. I find it disturbing to look at :) It makes a row look like a repetition of the heading row, like you get on long lists (e.g. when the column titles are repeated every 100 rows)
1.2) I don't think we should put too much information about a station on this list. Just the basic facts. Name, line(s) and link to the article. If you want to know more, you can go to the article. Unless you want to be able to sort by date. That'd be the only reason I can think of. But then you'd need a date column instead of putting it in the comments column.
2) 2 things here:
2.1) New column. This I think we could do, but I'd like to hear some more opinions. I don't think that a station serving more than one line has anything special.
2.2) Hidden number. Good idea. I will look at the template.
3) Done
4) Yes, I agree with you. I had never thought about adding photos to this kind of list, but when Ymblanter suggested it in a different thread I thought it was a very interesting idea. But I have thought more about this and I reckon we shouldn't have them.
Update on 5) I've looked. There is a template called Static column begin but it only supports tables of up to 200 rows! We'll have to change the code of the template to make it support tables with more than 200 rows. The other available solution is to create another table right next to the current table, and edit the style so they look like they're actually the same table. But a problem with this approach is that if the browser decides that the height of the certain row needs to be more than the other rows, this change won't be reflected on the static column, so that static column will be "out of sync", if you know what I mean Azylber (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I returned the pictures before reading this thread. I will not add more pictures until we find consensus. I believe the pictures are still useful, since one can immediately see for instance whether a station is underground or not, then Lines 1 and 2 are individual, and also even on the new lines like 4 and 5 stations have different color. I think the pictures summarize this info well, and I do not see any drawback of having them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Azylber,
Thank you for reviewing and acting on my suggestions.
1.1.1. The shaded rows needn't be grey. In the China high-speed rail lines table, I used green shading. In the historical names of Beijing table, I used shaded cells. How do these shading variations appear to you? To me, a column with many blank cells give the table, an unfinished look.
1.2.1. I see your concern. In general, the more useful information a table has, the more the table will be used. In addition to sorting by date, we might wish to create a column to allow the table to be sorted by transfer stations. (See 2.1.1 below) As ymblanter notes, it may be informative to indicate whether the table is above, at or below grade. In the future, if the data ever becomes available, a column on average daily ridership could be added. That would be a neat sortable column. The NYC Subway has station ridership figures.
2.1.1. Allowing a reader to sort the table to isolate the transfer stations would allow the table to convey the information of this table [[10]] without having to create a separate table. Now, why would anyone want to see a list of only the transfer stations? (1) to quickly locate a particular transfer (2) to count the number of transfers (3) to identify important stations in the network or (4) curiosity. I don't suppose that any of these reasons are especially compelling -- though others may think of other uses -- but if there is the space, such a column would a bit more functionality to the table.
3.1. The table without the image thumbnails does look more compact and sleek. More rows are visible. I prefer it. It looks really nice.
4.1. See my reply to Ymblanter below.
5.1. Looks like it's too hard. Maybe when the templates evolve, we can add the numbered column.
Dear ymblanter, I share in your desire to be able to present the various station pictures in one place so as to allow readers to make visual comparisons. I have found, though, that inserting galleries of larger image size to be more effective than inserting thumbnails into tables. For a comparison, see Yangtze River Bridges. I created the sortable table without images in that article and separately created a gallery for the bridges with images. Later, another user carved out the Chongqing section of the table and turned it into a non-sortable table with photos embedded therein. I think useful information is lost when a table with sortable data is rendered unsortable. The pictures also look better when they are bigger. I think we can create galleries of the stations either in this article or in the articles for each of the lines. Moving the images to galleries would allow the table to be more compact and the images to be more visible ContinentalAve (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
In a detailed survey of underground metro systems The Economist of 5-11 January 2013 - page 46, identifies the Beijing system as the world's largest by length (442 km), followed by Shanghai (423 km), London (402 km) and New York (368 km). This article currently lists Beijing as second in size, apparently after New York. Is updating required or is there some accepted means of measurement exclusive to subways (e.g. including surface-rail lines) that would put NY ahead. Since (according to The Economist) Beijing intends to extend its system to 1,000 km by 2020 the point may shortly be a moot one anywayBuistr (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC).
Shanghai has taken over since January. There is also Seoul, which can be the longest depening what lines one counts.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Line Name/Color Boxes
Could someone please fix the Name/Color boxes in the table under the Lines section. Previously, the boxes appeared as they do on other Chinese subways systems such as Shenyang Metro or Chengdu Metro. The boxes had rounded corners, and the the text was inside the box instead of beside. The transfers boxes also had rounded corners. An example of what they used to look like can be see here with Line 2, Shenyang Metro. If someone could please revert these boxes to their original form, it would improve the look and feel of the page. I tried to fix it, but it was beyond my ability. Any assistance would be gratefully accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.2.177 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Free Rides for Seniors
The link to the article claiming that seniors over 65 enjoy free rides was wrong. I checked with the counter and they said they still need to buy a ticket even with the Beijing Senior Citizen pass that offers free rides on buses and free entrances to parks etc. Besides there was an article just recently about how they plan to make the subway free for 80+ seniors with a special card that can be charged up to 100 yuan per month.
I assume the current card system doesn't allow for free rides anyway as you have to go in and out with paid tickets and this could easily be abused by borrowing cards.
There is a convention for some Wikipedia articles to begin with the "History" section, but the convention is ill-suited for the Beijing Subway. Most readers come to the Beijing Subway for practical information that is frequently changing and updated: fare, hours, list of lines, and network map. The history section is extensive and placing it first forces readers to scroll through many lines of unchanging information to reach the more pertinent, frequently updated and most useful information. The article is supposed to help readers understand the subject matter, not adhere to the inflexible application of conventions. See also Seoul Metro, Tokyo subway. ContinentalAve (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually most of the good metro systems articles have a history section in the lead. Articles such as the New York City Subway, Toronto rapid transit, London Underground, Paris Métro, Berlin U-Bahn and Hong Kong MTR are much better models for this article. The English Seoul Metro and Tokyo subway are some of the most sterile and anemic transport articles I have read. I normally look at the articles in their native languages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the information presented here should be more informative for a user looking for more "meaty" historical and technical knowledge. Honestly, people looking for practical information such as: fare, hours, list of lines, and network maps should be going to the Metro operator’s website not Wikipedia. What should be done is to prune the history section and make it more readable and less dense.Terramorphous (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If the History section is becoming too weighty, then so long as there is enough information to do so, one can spin off a separate article (called "History of the Beijing Metro", or something similar), and provide a succinct summary of its main points with a link to the History article here. However, this needs careful thought about what to include here, and a careful assessment about whether there is enough content to justify the History article. DDStretch (talk)23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Terramorphous. The Beijing Subway website does not have English content and the eBeijing website for the Beijing Subway has not been updated since 2008, which explains why so many users come to Wikipedia article for basic information. The Hong Kong MTR article is terribly unhelpful in this respect. Its basic information about lines and maps are buried 44 paragraphs into the article. Readers learn about the MTR's future expansion plans before they learn how to transfer from the Island Line to the Tsun Wan Line. The New York Subway article, which has a separate history article, still has 25 paragraphs of text before the map and lines table. Why should a reader looking up the new terminus of the 7-train on the West Side of Manhattan have to read about the NYC subway debt crisis in the 1970s? There was a time when most of these metro articles had lines tables first, and that was a better time. @DDStretch - your suggestion of trimming the history section down to a handful of paragraphs implicitly acknowledges the need for users to have quick access to practical information but the purpose of Wikipedia is also to provide "meaty" information. The Beijing Subway has a long history. To have substantive content and quick access to useful information, the natural arrangement is to place history after the practical information. ContinentalAve (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Inflated station numbers
Some stations are counted twice, or three times to inflate the number of stations. Most systems do not count one transfer stations as multiple separate stations for the total count unless they are trying to inflate numbers. For example, Xizhimen station is counted as 3 separate stations in this page!! There is no need to inflate though, there are already an impressive number of stations. Mattximus (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.beijing.cn/rcpage/photoview.html#dthcd/images/img1226045173102_big.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.beijing.cn/rcpage/photoview.html#dthcd/images/img1226045154463_big.jpg){kind=link}
