nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: +
→Tyne and Wear Metro?: Comment on the T&W not being called a "subway".
::::: It's referred to as the Metro. 'Subway' in the UK refers to a pedestrian passageway beneath a road or railway, rather than to a metro-type system. The underground stations are in the main city centres, so most travellers would use a sub-surface station for at least part of their journey. [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 08:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::: It's referred to as the Metro. 'Subway' in the UK refers to a pedestrian passageway beneath a road or railway, rather than to a metro-type system. The underground stations are in the main city centres, so most travellers would use a sub-surface station for at least part of their journey. [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 08:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: 'Subway' here in Oz means the same as in the UK. This article defines 'subway' as "...a Rapid Transit system that runs underground for ''much or all'' of its route". Even granting the non-underground mileage of the London Underground, it's fair to say that it runs underground for "much" of its route. (And Sydney would also fit your description of most travellers using an underground station, I would think.) But the article's definition doesn't seem to fit the Tyne and Wear. (Actually, I wonder about the Chicago El also, but I think much of that is no longer elevated, but underground?) Is the problem really the definition, or perhaps the title of the article? Perhaps this article should be a very brief description but referring to [[metro]] (although not ''that'' article) as the main article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: 'Subway' here in Oz means the same as in the UK. This article defines 'subway' as "...a Rapid Transit system that runs underground for ''much or all'' of its route". Even granting the non-underground mileage of the London Underground, it's fair to say that it runs underground for "much" of its route. (And Sydney would also fit your description of most travellers using an underground station, I would think.) But the article's definition doesn't seem to fit the Tyne and Wear. (Actually, I wonder about the Chicago El also, but I think much of that is no longer elevated, but underground?) Is the problem really the definition, or perhaps the title of the article? Perhaps this article should be a very brief description but referring to [[metro]] (although not ''that'' article) as the main article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: I didn't comment on the lack of use of the name. I understand why the Tyne and Wear doesn't use the term 'subway', and I should have realised that and not asked the question in that way. I guess what I was asking was what it ''is'' known by, and if that is ''equivalent to'' "subway". "The underground", "tube", etc. imply the same as "subway" does to Americans, but I'd consider "metro" to be a broader term than "subway", rather than a synonym for it. So in essence, what the Tyne and Wear is known as is ''not'' equivalent to "subway". Then add to that my comments above about it not fitting the (reasonable, in my opinion) description given in this article for "subway", and you will hopefully see my point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:46, 16 February 2008 (EST)