Jump to content

Talk:Réseau Express Régional

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRéseau Express Régional was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Fares

[edit]

Most metro/subway systems have a set fare paid to enter the system, without tickets being taken or anything like that. Most regional rail systems have tickets, and are based on zones and distances. What is the fare system for the RER? Is it one of these, neither, or a mixture of the two? I'm sure someone familliar with it could easily answer it, but I am not at all, and was curious, but it isn't mentioned in the article. Doregasm 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fare on the RER are calculated using fare zones centered around Paris (zone 1). Tickets are purple and can be bought from RATP and SNCF outlets (that's RER, Transilien, the whole lot) at stations, in underground stations and SNCF boutiques. Captain scarlet 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

[edit]

The new Map Metro and RER just added to this page doesn't work in Mozilla -- Tarquin 12:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Rollo 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what is the copyright on metro/subway maps, is it not possible to upload one to wikipedia? Swarve 02:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. This is exactly what we need here. The answer must be in the Help pages somewhere. Rollo 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cropped excerpt of the central section of the linked-to RATP map. There seems to be a good case for fair use of copyright material here, seeing that this is an incomplete version of the map; the complete version is linked to directly; and the original document is intended for pure public information purposes. Rollo 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Metropolitan for your work on the article, and particularly for the excellent map added. Rollo 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo, is it normal that I don't see the new map in .png format ? Do you see it or should I upload back in a .gif format ? Metropolitan 14:09, 2 January 2006 (CET)
Firefox tells me that there is errors with the png file, so maybe re-saving it into png & reuploading may fix this. Swarve 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't show in my version of Firefox either. This must be sorted out. Rollo 13:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked back the page to the .gif version. The .png version is still on-line, it's just a temporary solution until the problem is fixed. Metropolitan 04:37, 20 January 2006 (CET)

We still need a map of the entire network. At the least, a geographically accurate one of the type created by User:Metropolitan. At best, this and the official version too. Does anyone have a final answer on the acceptability of posting a minimised version of the official map, linking to the RATP site? --Rollo 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Are all over the place. I am going to sort them out soon. Rollo 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted out. The format for links is [[Station Name (Paris RER)]]. By my calculations there are only 8 stations (not including gares) containing both RER and Métro platforms with the same station name. For these I propose to redirect both the Métro and RER pages to a new single page with the name format [[Station Name (Paris Metro and RER)]]. Rollo 01:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rollo 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Paris RER" category set up

[edit]

Suggested usage. Perhaps it would be a good idea to reserve "Paris RER" categorisation for proper, substantial articles only - ie, not all those empty stubs about suburban stations. These can easily go in the List of stations of the Paris RER. This way there will be a means of sifting thru the mountains of station pages to the ones with useful information. Rollo 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

What happened to the photo of the RER E train at the top of the article? Rollo 11:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Metropolitan. I still think we could do with a decent photo (like the former one of the RER E train) at the top of the article. Best would be a little photo of an RER sign in the information box at top, like in the Paris Metro article. I'll do this at some point if no one else does. Rollo 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The former picture from the RER E had been taken from the internet, that's why moderators decided to remove it. Actually, it's not deleted, it's simply hidden (now with all the edits on this RER article, it could have been deleted but as far as I know it's still hidden in the RER E article). About the picture of the RER sign, that's exactly the idea I had in mind. I wanted to go either at Auber or at Luxembourg to take a picture of the RER sign in the city with a beautiful scenery behind. I haven't abandonned the idea yet. It's just that I have to go there to take the pic ! Metropolitan 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll race you to it, and then we'll put up whoever's is the nicest! Apart from rue Auber and Luxembourg, I think there's a good one on bd Haussmann right in front of Lafayette. Rollo 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one I was thinking about. It's an RER entrance to the station Auber, that's why I've told Auber. I'll probably have the opportunity to take a shot there on tomorrow as I'll go in the area. I hope the weather will be as sunny as today ! Metropolitan 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I've finally taken some pictures this morning. Unfortunately, I'm not that much satisfied as my camera got short in battery and I couldn't take better shots than those: RER sign 1.jpg; RER sign 2.jpg; RER sign 3.jpg. If there's one you like more than the others, feel free to upload it as a PD file as long as you mention myself (Metropolitan) as the author. Personally, I can't choose, I find them all crap. Metropolitan 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's funny. I got some there yesterday too, and they look pretty much the same! I will upload them in the next day or two and we'll see what looks best. The best option would seem the sign opposite Printemps, as in your third pic. But sunlight doesn't reach this one in the morning or evening, and midday photos are never a good idea. How complicated! Rollo 08:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cropped Metropolitan's photo of the RER sign at Auber to the size of the one at Paris_Metro and uploaded it as PD, as specified. Definitely an improvement. --Rollo 14:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have a logo now but I had offered my help in this matter. On my last trip to Paname i took this oversized picture and if want, i'll be happy to edit it, crop it and resize it for the article, I just find it's a tad sharper than Rollo's which is never the less a good piccie. Captain scarlet 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a lot better logo. I'm all for adding Captain Scarlet's one to this page ! Feel free to do it, I'm sure Rollo wouldn't mind. :-) Metropolitan 2:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Quality. I'll work on it after work, I'll try different sizesm especially width coz that building behind is looks fantastic (near Notre-Dame, St Michel EXIT only stairs).
I'm unconvinced that's going to look better in the tiny space available. It's also terribly lit compared to the existing one (Metropolitan's, not mine). Remember the golden rule for outdoor photography: do it in the morning or evening. --Rollo 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I have removed both my photo of the RER A train (coz it's not very good) and the one of the RER C (which is already on the RER C page). Ideally the photos should be related to their section titles, however. We could really do with some pics of early construction for the history section, for example. In the meantime, it would be helpful if someone could identify the exact model of train pictured at Saint Denis. --Rollo 14:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me which image features that train I should be able to identify it. Alternatively, I have photos of almost all RER trains, in both tunnels and outdoors. Concerning the logo, as I said, I will work on it, and its current lighting is not representative to what it should look like. Shall I work on it and let you see first? Best we can do is at least compare and talk about the results once I'm back home. Yours is good, but admitedly it is rather blurry. Concerning early photos I do not have and prefer not to use websites' images. Cheers, Captain scarlet 09:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unidentified train is the one pictured in the "Trains" section of the article, at 'La Plaine - Stade de France' (sorry, that's near Saint Denis but not the same thing). Go ahead and tweak your pic of the Saint Michel sign and we'll see what that produces. In terms of quality you definitely found the right sign! But really we need a sunny morning or evening to do justice to it. And I'm a bit disappointed that no one sees the merits of the existing effort. Yep, it could perhaps be a whisker sharper. But the colour is rich, the sign stands out on the shadowed background, and fits the cinema-frame format perfectly. I think it's a strong image. --Rollo 09:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ah I most certainly do not condemn your effort, just that if anything that is sensibly better or say more appropriate then I'd go for the new one. At the ne dof the day we might find uses for both of them rather than condeming yours, which as you say has the merrit of beeing colourful and bright. (I'll blame February cloudy, rainy and snowing weather for my piccie). Nuf skyving off work for now... Cheers, Captain scarlet 09:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rollo is right when it comes about the lights of a sunny weather. Captain scarlet, I've tried my personal edit on your pic to make it look more sunny, unfortunately it looks fake. Anyway there it is : RER_sign.jpg. However, on a smaller version as the one needed for the illustration, it may not be that bad : RER_sign_small.jpg. I'm awaiting your version and hope it will be better. Metropolitan 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tataaaa, what do you think of those two: take one and take two. It've tried to be stylish as well as practical. I think Metropolitan, you might have lightened the pic too much, so the stone buildings are pale, but a bit less heavy on the Luminosity/Contrast and you get those two. You or I could work on a series of icon style piccies to suit different kind of articles, stations, line, rolling stock, system articles. Captain scarlet 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, I'm impressed. I forgot the miracles that can be worked with the saturation tool. If the second one could be widened a bit to go into the existing 250x74 slot which matches Paris Metro, that would be perfectly decent. One problem with that infobox is that it is already too tall. A dirty solution would be to add a couple more lines to the introduction. --Rollo 20:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the take 1 than the take 2. The fact the image is taller isn't such a problem, we don't need to have an image exactly at the dimension of the metro one. We don't see well enough that it's actually a sign on the second picture. I'll upload Captain Scarlet's take 1 and if you're not satisfied, you can still re-upload another image on it afterwards. Metropolitan 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers guys. So, you would like a wider version of Take two but similar in style (kinda through the looking lass). These aren't definite versions, just examples. Could you not upload the images since they're stil on my website (so not GNUed).~
Could I have a sum up of what RER articles need what you recon would be good and I'll do exactly that (so kinda different or not to what is shown above. do bare in mind that pictures will be done tomorrow afternoon, yet again after a hard (cough cough) day of work. Captain scarlet 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i see you've already uploaded it. I would have wished you ask me first, media on smokefilledroom is copyrighted. Captain scarlet 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future developments hypotheses

[edit]

I have reverted Captain scarlet's edit which removed Maximilian Dörrbecker's "Vision for the RER network in 2025". This interesting speculative map seems to me entirely relevant to its section title, and there is no copyright infringement. Better to augment others' contributions than to destroy them. The opinion of others on this matter would of course be appreciated. Rollo 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that particular section of content as it is not verifiable. Captain scarlet 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hypothetical nature of Maximilian Dörrbecker's illustration has now been clarified in the article. --Rollo 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Need to check: The central portion of line A has the highest capacity of any section of rail in the world. --Anon

Checked. This assertion balanced with more information. Rollo 21:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Pont d'Asnières the railway line with highest frequency of service? It's int Guinness. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't verify this. If it can be sourced, stick it in. From the information I remember reading, most of the world's busiest railway lines are in Japan. --Rollo 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one answered this, apparently. Could someone investigate inline citations? If not, I will sometime soon. --Rollo 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two Gerondeau citations are now converted using the "ref" markup; unsourced facts are tagged with the "source?" tag - I will try to find the page refs of the Gerondeau ones, but the others need to be sorted out too. --Rollo 11:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gerondeau citations completed. Rollo 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for article improvements

[edit]

Negative cultural associations of the RER should perhaps be covered in the Usage section: dirtiness, the perceived association with petty crime (especially around Les Halles). A lot of Parisians don't like the RER. --Rollo 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fare structure needs some coverage, especially with reference to the Carte Imagine R and the Carte solidarité transport.--Rollo 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Start Date of RER Construction appears contradictory

[edit]

Might have got wrong end of stick here but how come "Construction was ceremonially inaugurated by Robert Buron, Minister for Public Works, at the Pont de Neuilly on 6 July 1961" when "The embryonic (and as yet unnamed) RER was conceived in the 1965 Schéma directeur d'aménagement et d'urbanisme"??? How would Mr Buron have known what he was inaugrating and how would the builders have known what they were constructing if the idea hadn't been born until 4 years afterwards? Did they just start some provisional digging in 1961 in the hope that some definite plan might be finally adopted in '65? Sorry but it seems a little contradictory? Thanks to anyone who can enlighten us or change the article so that the dates match up or add any missing pieces of the jigsaw! :-) Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapmark (talkcontribs) 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comment. Clarification added. The priority was an east-west route, as a first step to a full network. This plan was only properly defined in 1965, but it can be assumed that Buron and the builders saw the significance of the occasion. Rollo 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency

[edit]

"This also explains why train frequencies on the RER central network is even lower than on the Paris metro network (as low as one train every 90 seconds on RER A during ruh hour)."

I can't be certain, but I think that a well intending contributor has accidently written this upside down. Personally, I would consider "high frequency" to mean "trains come more often" - and hence, less often for lower frequency. Yet the statement above implies that it is a wonderful achievement for trains to be of lower frequency than the metro. Compare the metro to the London Tube or NYC Subway. Trains come every 3 minutes at least. Hardly difficult to be less frequent - vast majority of trains, actually, if you go by my definition of "lower frequency".

Surely this should read "even higher [frequency]"?martianlostinspace 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martian for having noticed that. It's been corrected. Metropolitan 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the timetable, there is a train every 120 seconds on RER A during rush hours. Are there any unannounced trains, or is there another explanation to the stated frequency of 90 seconds? -- Kildor (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RER trains not level with platform

[edit]

Some RER trains, like the RER B line to Charles DeGaulle Airport have doors that are not level with the platform. You have to step up to get to the train. This is rather odd. Does any one know the reason for this design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.26.22 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I've seen some videos on YouTube of trains on the London Underground that seem to have the same issue. Even though the step up is small, I would imagine that it would make boarding difficult for people in wheelchairs and the like, and be illegal in the U.S. due to laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know whether there is international legislation in Europe that governs accessibility (I would think that the EU would have some say in the matter, given the number of trains that travel between countries, as well as Europe's propensity for passing progressive legislation at the same as time as or even before the United States does), or whether the French government has any particular regulations regarding it. 66.234.222.96 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violation?

[edit]

The will, and even idealism, of a handful of people, notably Pierre Giraudet, Director-General of the RATP, proved decisive in persuading ministers to grant credits. So too did the united front presented by the RATP and SNCF and their success at keeping within their budgets. Given the subsequent success of the RER, the investment can be considered money well spent.

I've put a "Citation needed" tag on this, but it probably should be deleted, since it puts out a point of view that seems inappropriate within an encyclopedia article. At the very least, it should be re-worked into something more factual (i.e., how much was budgeted, and how much was actually spent?). 66.234.222.96 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Final POV statement removed. The "united front" and "budget success" bits came from the same source as the figures cited just before, so they're legitimate. But ideally figures or another source are needed, so will leave the tag. Rollo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is even more endemic than just one section. Reading through the article, I see many spots where the language contains overly-flowery peacock terms, and it makes the article read like a promotional puff piece. At least that's the impression that I get.oknazevad (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

[edit]

I think it's — IPA: [ɛʁ.ə.ɛʁ], and not — IPA: [ɛʀøɛʀ], according to this — Wikipedia:IPA, and this — Wikipedia:IPA for French, and this — Voiced uvular fricative, and this — Uvular trill, and this — Schwa, and this — Mid central vowel, and this — French phonology ^__^. It's a mistake? Can i fix it? --Grenadine (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're French, fix it! Classical geographer (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm not French, and it's for this i begin with talk... :) But, i can fix it! :) I don't see any contra. I will wait a little before fixing. For others opinions... Who knows... --Grenadine (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

This should be a disambiguation page now, as Bruxelles and Lyon got their own RER projets, and this article moved to a more specific name.

Gonioul (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ligne de Sceaux?

[edit]

Greetings, I noticed there is nothing about the real origins of the RER, the Ligne de Scaux (marked S and with different markage on old RATP plans, prior to 1945 I think, unlike the Ligne d'Auteuil); this line was serving the southern branches of what is now RER B, and I see no mention of it on the page. Should it be included in an "origins" section? I believe it is noteworthy enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.48.107 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the history section. --Rollo (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect claim

[edit]

"This feature allows a high frequency, which on some lines exceeds that of the Paris Métro — a situation which in Europe is unique to Paris.[citation needed]" Both Berlin and Munch have frequencies of 2/3 minutes on their trunk lines, barely matched by their respective subway lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.66.165 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been removed. Rollo (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note that this may not be the primary topic on French or other language wikipedias but the case that it is so on the english language one is persuasive. --rgpk (comment) 18:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RERParis RER — RER is a term, understood in Francophone cities, for a regional rail rapid transit system (e.g. Brussels, Geneva).--Haskanik (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current arrangement does not match http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/RER (does not point to Paris RER) or http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Underground (does not point to London Underground) Haskanik (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed internally challenged sentence

[edit]

I have removed the following sentence:

On the sections of shared track, each company operates separately: the SNCF RER operates on RFF track and the RATP on its own.

I don't know what the original author was trying to say here, but what it has ended up saying can be precised as where the tracks are shared, they are not shared. This is clearly nonsensical; either they are shared or not shared, they cannot be both at the same time. -- Starbois (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Starbois: préciser est un faux ami, and does not translate as "precised", a word that does not even exist in English as a verb. Depending on your intended meaning, you could try "specified", "indicated", "summarized", or "clarified". Bonne continuation, Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lines Length

[edit]

The values presented in this article doesn't match the length presented in the RER articles. For instance, RER_D indicates 197.0 km and not 160.0 km as in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.26.66 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected to 190km, figure currently on RATP site. --Rollo (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RERRéseau Express Régional – RER is an abbreviation used by many things from video games to existing and proposed commuter rail services similar to this one. It is bad practice to give priority to this and not to the other pages listed in the RER (disambiguation) page. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC) SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the malformed template. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page per nom, "RER" has many meanings, and this is not clearly the top one. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no opposition to this, so should I just go ahead and do it? I apologise for the malformed template, it's just my first time doing this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Overwhelmingly the commonest name for the railway system (to the extent that I doubt whether most people, even in Paris, know what its full name is) and by far the most common meaning of RER, as can be seen from the other obscure meanings on RER (disambiguation). So no, this isn't an uncontroversial proposal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the other pages on the redirect page are that obscure. Three refer to rail services which are most commonly known by RER, rather than their full name. I don't think we as editors can decide which of the pages are most or least important, that's for the reader to decide; hence the redirect page. Prioritising the importance of certain pages over others is one of the things that leads to systemic bias on Wikipedia, and I feel we must avoid this when making these kinds of decisions. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Systemic bias usually occurs in reference to prioritising topics favoured by the English-speaking world. Since the RER we're talking about is French, I don't think that's relevant here. The only question is whether this RER is the primary topic and whether most people looking for RER are going to be looking for this article. I believe that without doubt it is and they are. It is a major transportation network of one of the world's most significant cities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am surprised to just now learn that the RER that runs between Geneva and Bellegarde-sur-Valserine in France is entirely separate from the other one in France that this article is discussing. Placing the dab page at RER might help others to also learn that it's a different system. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment move page to longer name for sure, and probably move the dab page also 76.120.162.73 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof, in other words due to the Rhône Express Régional. The station naming convention should remain in tact, however. I also support User:65.94.43.89 recommendation to move "RER" to the dab page. --------User:DanTD (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've always known of it only as "RER", but that's only because I know only a little French. Using the full name is preferred, as long as "RER" redirects here and is not about some other thing. JIP | Talk 22:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory. "RER" is too ambiguous, especially given the existence of respiratory exchange ratio (it's commonly known as RER, and it gets an equivalent number of hits to the Paris RER, [1] vs. [2]). My concern would be whether the rail system's full name is WP:RECOGNIZABLE.--Cúchullain t/c 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I oppose this in theory (due to systemic bias) but looking for a workable solution, would it be possible in the disambiguation page to put the pages with the higher pageviews at the top and then the others under an "other uses" subheading so those looking for the French network specifically would see it straight away? I don't know what the general policy is on this kind of thing, but that could possibly resolve some of the concerns. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Jimbo H. Christ, that's a lot of incoming links. I can't move the dab in good conscience right now. As the closer, however, it's my official ruling that it should. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Réseau Express Régional. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Réseau Express Régional. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]