Wikipedia

Talk:Jungang line/Archive 1

< Talk:Jungang line
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 18 February 2018
Archive 1

Move Request

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! -- tariqabjotu 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago47 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. See no general agreement here; however, supporters have the community consensuses in the style guideline, naming convention and AT policy, which is more than enough to rename this article. Suspect these should also apply to all Japanese lines and stations, as well. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Jungang Line → Jungang line – "Line" should not be considered part of the proper name. This also applies to other articles of Korean rail lines. In fact, I performed such moves, but reversed them per a request on my talk page. feminist (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. feminist (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. "Line" absolutely is part of the proper name - just like in Main Street, Sunset Boulevard, Piccadilly Circus, Trans-Canada Highway, etc. It's the same situation. In Korea, Japan, China, and elsewhere in East Asia, railway lines are given names just like in the Anglosphere we give names to streets and highways.

To go a bit further, the first part (e.g. Gyeongbu) isn't a standalone name for the railway line, as it's often used in the names of other things. So, you have the Gyeongbu Line for the railway line, and the Gyeongbu Expressway for the freeway; Jungang is used with the Jungang Line, the Jungang Expressway, the Jungang University, the JungAng Ilbo newspaper, etc. So, like "expressway" or "university" or whatever, the "line" is part of the name. A local (for me) example is Vancouver's SkyTrain lines, which are named Expo Line (we also have an Expo Boulevard), the Canada Line (we also have a Canada Way and a Canada Place), the Evergreen Extension, and the Millenium Line.

Basically, if you're going to argue that "Line" shouldn't be capitalised in a non-descriptive name, then you must also argue that "Street" shouldn't be capitalised in "Main Street". Something like "the Pyongyang-Sinuiju line" is a descriptive, so "line" isn't capitalised, but "Pyongui Line", which is the actual *name* of the line, "Line" needs to be capitalised.

And a further point: like streets, non-descriptive names can be changed. The Seoul-Gyeongju railway line was originally named "Gyeonggyeong Line", and later had its name changed to "Jungang Line" - "Central Line". The Kilju-Hyesan line was originally named "Kilhye Line", and later had its name changed to "Paektusan Chongnyon Line" - "Mount Paektu Youth Line", which doesn't really *describe* anything about the line. The Harbin-Manzhouli railway line was initially named "Haman Railway", then had its name changed to "Binzhou Line", and subsequently was again renamed, to "Binzhou Railway". A parallel example in the Anglosphere is another example local to me - our "King George Highway" was renamed "King George Boulevard".

Lastly, to answer Tom.Reding's question - taken together, there are several hundred "Line" pages about named railway lines in Korea and Japan.

I agree in principle that over-capitalisation is to be avoided, but in the cases of these named East Asian railway lines, the "Line" needs to be capitalised as it is without question part of the line's proper name.2Q (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support just as we've done in almost every other country already; nothing special has been shown about Korea on this. If it's good enough styling for the Railway Gazette, it's good enough for en.wp. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Dicklyon Railway Gazette is remarkably inconsistent. Even within the same article - the one you linked, has "Seoul Main Station". 2Q (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
We're pretty inconsistent at en.wp, too, but moving toward better consistency over time. Much progress in the last 12 years that I've been editing, but still lots to be done. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Question As many times as this has come up, I mentioned this, and nobody's ever actually replied to it. What makes named railway lines different from named streets? And why is everybody who is insistent on decapitalising, ignoring the fact that in Korea, Japan, etc., they have a practice of naming railway lines like streets and highways? Re: "nothing special has been shown about Korea on this" ... I've explained perfectly clearly, several times, in some detail, how these railway lines are named in exactly the same way we name streets. Why is this being ignored? Evidently, getting things right isn't a priority here... 2Q (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    That's a good question. What I think we have here is a group of people who devote their time to trying to move pages for no reason. They seem to refuse any rational reasons why they are wrong, then give reasons, such as MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS that don't really back up their arguments. This is a proper name. 2601:40D:301:B832:F565:2C17:F9D6:F86 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    You guys should WP:AGF. Saying "Evidently, getting things right isn't a priority here" or "trying to move pages for no reason" is just attacking the persons of longstanding well-meaning contributors. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, Dicklyon, but put yourself in my position - what else am I to conclude, but that dogma trumps accuracy, when numerous times I've explained what the situation is, and it's been *completely ignored* every time. Going on again and again about "consistently capitalized in sources" - when the sources are consistently inconsistent, because we're discussing something non-English that is seldom discussed in English literature, is simply dogmatic, especially when it's being clearly explained... "consistently capitalized in sources" is fine for things English... but when we're talking about other languages, that do things differently, and have different practices... fact should trump dogma. Remember... *ignore the rules*, when it doesn't make sense to follow them. It clearly doesn't, in this case. 2Q (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure I've answered before. It's about what MOS:CAPS says: "consistently capitalized in sources". Streets and Bridges are, lines and stations are not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Lines sometimes *are*, in English, when they are *explicitly given names*. This isn't an uncommon practice in the Anglosphere. But it is universal in Japan and Korea.2Q (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've given English-language examples on multiple occasions. Do a google search adding site:cbc.ca (or other Canadian media site) for "skytrain expo line" or "skytrain millenium line", and you will *consistently* find that the "Line" is capitalised - because it is a proper name. 2Q (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is nothing wrong with the article as it is, and it is a proper name. It seems very American-centric to go around and try to rename all the train stations of Asian countries while we have the same here. Why have Red Line (CTA), Orange Line (CTA), Yellow Line (CTA), Green Line (CTA), Blue Line (CTA), Purple Line (CTA), Brown Line (CTA) and Pink Line (CTA)? What about all the New York City Lines? The Franklin Avenue Shuttle? MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are referring to words such as "and" or "the", not the proper names of the subject of the article. Like Street and Avenue. Also, MOS:FOREIGNTITLE instructs editors to take into consideration how titles are used where the subject is located. This just seems like a waste of time for nothing. 2601:40D:301:B832:F565:2C17:F9D6:F86 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that there is still some overcapitalized on American lines, too, though not sure all your examples are on point. So clearly this is not an American-centric move prososal; more like world-centric in spite of America. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    You're interpreting his point in exactly the opposite meaning of what he'd intended - those are not overcapitalised, they are proper names, including the "Line" and the "Shuttle". 2Q (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As this is a proper noun (just like streets and rivers etc.), it is correctly capitalized as Jungang Line in accordance with the first line of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. It doesn't make sense to propose a move in contravention of the established Wikipedia style guide. --DAJF (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • See all previous RMs of this sort. It's not a proper name, an no one has ever demonstrated a case that any of them are. Just asserting it yet again here without argument or evidence is a waste of our time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I have presented piles of evidence several times, you just choose to ignore it each time... it absolutely is a proper name - unless you also assert that "Sunset Boulevard" is likewise not a proper name. 2Q (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I've shown links to articles that don't use the cap in Jungang line (here's another); have you shown any with Sunset boulevard not capped? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Dicklyon You're *still* missing my point completely. I'm trying my damnedest to WP:AGF but you're making it very difficult. I'm becoming convinced that no amount of proof I can give that these names are, in fact, proper names, is going to get you to change your position; similarly, you're not going to convince me that 1 does not equal 1, when I know for certain that indeed 1=1. So instead I'll ask this: is there a "court" of some sort where we can take this, where you can present your arguments, I can present mine, and have people who have nothing invested in this decide, neutrally, based on the merits of the presented arguments? I'm starting to think that's the only way this can be settled with finality. 2Q (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
            • There's no "court", just discussions among editors, like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
              • That's unfortunate. 2Q (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at how the line names are written in Korean, it can be assumed that 'Line' is part of the official name, and is thus to be capitalised. You can't just cite a 'station' decap RM, both issues are to be dealt with separately. R22-3877 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Support per nom, and for standardisation's sake. R22-3877 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • On that point, maybe we should review all tht Asian line articles as well? They have the same problem. R22-3877 (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That's blatant original research. WP does not base its orthography on what individuals imagine might be implied by something in Korean, a language that doesn't even have capital/lower-case distinctions. This is just an attempt to re-litigate a long series of consistently lower-case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It isn't. If it is, you would romanize it (Jungang-seon) instead of translating it (Jungang line). --Postcol (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Interesting idea, but the standard of whether or not part of the title is translated doesn't have much to do with whether something is a proper noun in real-world usage: Lake Titicaca (not Lago Titicaca or lake of Titicaca), Leaning Tower of Pisa (not Torre pendente di Pisa or leaning tower of Pisa), Genpei War (not Genpei gassen or Genpei war), Constitution of Azerbaijan (not Azərbaycan konstitusiyası or constitution of Azerbaijan), etc. Dekimasuよ! 07:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • On that point, seems that I was rather misguided on my ideas. Striking through original point. R22-3877 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. --Postcol (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The operator Korail uses "Line" korail.com. Proper nouns such as Jungang Line, Dong Seoul Bus Terminal, Jungnyeong Tunnel, Jongno District, Olympic Park, Namdaemun Market, Seoul Tower, Korea University, Seoul High School, World Cup Bridge, Paektu Mountain, and so on shall be capitalized. Sawol (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 2Q and Sawol, who gives more specific examples along the lines of the concern I raised above. Dekimasuよ! 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Capitalised “Line” implies a proper name, and the case for that is weak from most railway lines. Decapialised “line” is too brief, leaving out the most important word, railway. Wikipedia is not just for railways, unlike so many railway sources. Move to Jungang railway line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe that's the point - "Jungang Line" *is* the proper name of this particular railway line. See this what I wrote previously: "the first part (e.g. Gyeongbu) isn't a standalone name for the railway line, as it's often used in the names of other things. So, you have the Gyeongbu Line for the railway line, and the Gyeongbu Expressway for the freeway; Jungang is used with the Jungang Line, the Jungang Expressway, the Jungang University, the JungAng Ilbo newspaper, etc. So, like "expressway" or "university" or whatever, the "line" is part of the name. A local (for me) example is Vancouver's SkyTrain lines, which are named Expo Line (we also have an Expo Boulevard), the Canada Line (we also have a Canada Way and a Canada Place), the Evergreen Extension, and the Millenium Line."
And further still, all references in English to railway lines in Japan and Korea - whether they capitalise correctly or not - translate the line's name as it is in the original language. In Japanese and Korean "railway line" (tetsudō rosen; cheoldo noseon/roseon) is used only in general descriptive terms, e.g. Seoul–Busan railway line, 서울과 부산 사이 철도노선 = "railway line between Seoul and Busan". Railway lines in those two countries are given names like we give names to roads etc., and the given name of this line between Seoul and Busan is 경부선, gyeongbuseon - Gyeongbu Line 2Q (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That is to say,
◯ I'll go there on the Jungang Line. (communicates the intended meaning)
◯ The line I'll go there on is the Jungang Line. (communicates the intended meaning)
△ The line I'll go there on is (the) Jungang. (conveys meaning, but not in a natural way)
？ I'll go there on the Jungang. (does not communicate the intended meaning, showing that "Line" is an integral part of the proper name)
This is true in both Korean and Japanese.
Dekimasuよ! 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not convinced. Are you familiar with Proper_noun#Proper_names? Many descriptive names of unique things are not proper names. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe I'm absolutely familiar with it. And note the following points from your link: "proper nouns are limited to single words only", "as a proper name, Beach Road may have nothing to do with the beach; it may be any distance from the waterfront". Proper names can also be changed at whim, the Jungang Line in Korea was formerly called the Gyeonggyeong Line - but both names referred to the same railway line between Seoul and Gyeongju; another example is the Paektusan Chongnyon Line or "Paektusan Youth Line", which formerly was named Kilhye Line - both of those names refer to the same railway line between Kilju and Hyesan.
A comment to Dekimasu's comment above - "I'll go there on the Jungang" doesn't convey the necessary meaning because the immediate question would be, "the Jungang *what*? The Jungang *Line*, or the Jungang *Expressway*"?
And lastly a question back for SmokeyJoe: you say you are not convinced that Jungang Line etc is a proper name; assuming that you *are* convinced that "Sunset Boulevard" *is* a proper name, can you please explain the difference to me? Because, as I see it, both are relatively arbitrary *names* given to a specific thing. Japan and Korea (and Taiwan and China, incidentally) share the practice of assigning relatively arbitrary names to railway lines much like as I mentioned we give names to roads. Sometimes the name reflects where the railway goes (e.g. Gyeongbu Line between Seoul and Busan - Seoul was called Gyeongseong before 1945, but the "Gyeong" part of the name was retained in names given to rail lines and intercity roads running to/from Seoul); other times the name is somewhat arbitrarily descriptive, e.g. the Jungang Line (="Central Line") in S Korea or the Chuo Main Line (="Central Main Line") in Japan), or the Pukpu Line (="Northern Line") in N Korea... other lines are just as "central" or "northern", but only these specific lines were chosen to be designated with these names - there are several other northern lines, but there is only one Northern Line. And the third possibility is like the Paektusan Chongnyon Line, whose name is quite arbitrary, in that there is nothing about the railway line from Kilju to Hyesan that makes it particularly "Mount Paektu" nor particularly young. 2Q (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I see your point, roads and highways get proper name recognition pretty easily so why not railway lines? I can’t decide. Either go Jungang Line, proper name, or Jungang railway line, minimally descriptive name. Jungang line is worse than both. The lowercase description “line” is not sufficiently recognisable or precise, lines can be so many things, geometry and battle lines, for example. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, from there it should be a simple matter to decide that using the proper name Jungang Line is the only option, for two main reasons.
Firstly, the line's name translates directly as "Jungang Line", without 'railway', and English-language materials on Korean and Japanese railways invariably translate the 선/線 part of the name as "line" and not as "railway line", so on the grounds of 'established practice', the pages should be named 'XYZ Line', since that's the most likely way someone would search. There's no need to add extra descriptors - we use Channel Tunnel and Seikan Tunnel (which are at the same time their proper names!), not Channel railway tunnel nor Seikan railway tunnel.
Secondly, consistency. The naming of railway lines *does* occur to some degree in the Anglophone world, too, giving us things like Coast Line (UP) for the Union Pacific line from LA to San Francisco, the lines of Vancouver's SkyTrain system (Expo Line, Millennium Line, Canada Line, Evergreen Extension), Chicago's "colour" lines e.g. Pink Line (CTA), Orange Line (CTA), etc...
So, on those two primary points, established practice of translating the proper name directly, and consistency with how similar English-language lines' pages are titled, I'd argue that the direct translation "XYZ Line" is really the only real option. 2Q (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jungang Line. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jungang_line/Archive_1&oldid=1138500614"