Talk:Cities with rapid transit

Usefulness to travelers?

So totally need information on city pages about the local rapid transit system but what is the point of a list? This seams more of a Wikipedia project than a Wikivoyage one.--Traveler100 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In theory it might make sense to have an article for transport enthusiasts that lists cities with interesting or unique transit systems (Curitiba and La Paz would belong on that list, though they're not on this one). But I don't see the value of a list like this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. I find it difficult to see how this could be made useful. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 05:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That article would be Urban rail adventures. This article, if I remember correctly, was salvaged information from an older variant of that article where all cities that have an urban rail system were listed regardless if there was something special about the rail system. So I agree too. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

Simply a list of cities with no information that serves the traveler and feels more like something out of Wikipedia than here. Per the article's talk page, no way suggested to make the article useful (ping @Traveler100, Mx. Granger, Ypsilon: discussion participants). Even if there were, it would be more appropriate on one of our existing articles on the subject or the relevant country pages. Suggest delete as nominator. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, with a however. Looking at this article more closely than I did when I added the lede, I agree it should be deleted. However, the paragraphs with relevant information, if they are not duplicate content, should be moved somewhere else and not simply deleted with the list of cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Also @Yvwv: who created the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The information was added to urban rail early in its development. As the article was recently moved to public transportation, the list was too bulky to fit in the travel topic. /Yvwv (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Good call, and thanks User:Yvwv for the background. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• My opinion is that the text can be integrated with Urban rail adventures. For complete listings, we could refer to Wikipedia or external resources. /Yvwv (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that article could do with more content considering the number of pictures on the right side of the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• If text is being moved from one article to another, this should not be deleted, as everything needs attribution and a traceable origin, per our copyleft licence. Merge and redirect.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yep. That's _any_ text. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!, Ikan Kekek: This article is a sort of exception. Since all the text comes from the page history of Public transportation, we can (and should) attribute to there, so merge and delete seems to be an acceptable outcome. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be a viable alternative, as long as User:Yvwv didn't make any changes to the wording when copying. Thank you for explaining. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with merging the relevant content to Urban rail adventures. But only the relevant content—some of the prose in this article wouldn't fit there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• DeleteI mostly see dates that something opened, which is such readily available knowledge that it doesn't require attribution. Is there actually anything substantial to merge? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Only a list with information that should be on city pages. If data is merged to other article(s) no redirect should be created as title is meaningless and useless. Also information came from that article in the first place no need to preserve history. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. No harm in redirecting to Urban rail adventures, per TT and Granger. The list should probably be removed in the process, but the remaining content should still be merged (which I sort-of recommended in my first comment in this discussion thread). Just that now, I take the view the article should be made a redirect, rather than simply deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge into Urban rail adventures. The latter is supposed to focus on transport systems that are somehow exceptional or outlandish (in a positive sense) and thus "are an experience in themselves". I do not see anything "adventurous" in the list of cities with rapid transit as most of them are nothing special. The few explanatory texts may be collated with the "get around" sections of the respective cities, but I assume they are mostly redundant. --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with RJFF and others that a random list of cities with rail systems does not belong in "Urban rail adventures" as there is not adventurous identified in the list. Ground Zero (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge into Urban rail adventures. Some of the information is outdated (e.g. Chicago has used a card system for payment like New York for several years), and if I need to know about rapid transit in a city most people are going to look at the city article (not search for a generic rapid transit article). —The preceding comment was added by Zcarstvnz (talk • contribs)

Result: deletion. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)