Talk:Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit

Teleport?

Hopefully someone in the know can define "teleport" in this context. m-w.com only has "to transfer by teleportation", which obviously doen't apply here.

"the Teleport." Note the article and the capitalization, indicating that we're discussing a proper noun, the Tokyo Teleport. Sekicho 05:57, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

...as in "Tokyo Teleport Town", which I believe is the full name. Like a port for telecommunications, get it? Jpatokal 16:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article Name

Hey, shouldn't this article be Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit, if you know formal name of the company? --Izumi5 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the rename. Current article name is supposedly an incorrect back-formation of TWR. The formal corporate name is Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit, Inc. as seen in http://www.twr.co.jp/. Sushiya 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Sushiya 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Split

The article seems to cover both Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit and Rinkai Line. Both Korean and Japanese Wikipedia provide separate articles for these. —Tokek 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Japanese Wikipedia likes to separate companies and rail lines, but I don't think there's any point to this as TWR's only line is Rinkai. Jpatokal 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Armagebedar seems to have plunged forward and done this. I think this should be reverted, as it serves absolutely no purpose for a single-line company like TWR, and the article content is now duplicated across both (with attribution lost in the 2nd one).

And oh, I'm open to possibly renaming this article to make it clearer that the focus is on the line, not the company. Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is enough source material to have both, I'm fine with having both. However, if there is not, I suggest having a section about the company in the Rinkai Line article (with the redirect of the company name to that section directly). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no real reason why there can't be both—there is clearly enough information on both the company and the line. Also, we have many examples of articles split this way (Shin-Keisei Electric Railway and Shin-Keisei Line; Metropolitan Intercity Railway Company and Tsukuba Express; Osaka Prefectural Urban Development and Semboku Rapid Railway; etc.), and the fact that TWR is one of the few third-sector companies to make an operating profit is noteworthy. --armagebedar (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of having separate articles for operating companies and their individual lines, even if the company operates only one line - provided that there is enough information about the company per se to support a separate article, which appears to be the case here. The only problem I see with the split made here is that the resultant Rinkai Line article has now lost most of its edit history, despite the fact that the original (Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit) article was mostly devoted to talking about the line rather than the company. Is it not possible for an admin to undo (merge?) this and then move the original article (with its edit history) to Rinkai Line and create a new Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit article containing just the details about the company? --DAJF (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apparently messed that up, not realizing that the edit history was mainly about the line. Mea culpa. --armagebedar (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can somebody explain to me just how it benefits the reader to split and/or partly duplicate information in separate company and line articles? Jpatokal (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article about the company can (and does now) contain more details about corporate and financial information that would be difficult to include neatly into an article about the line. There is very little duplication between the two, and it looks pretty logical to me to split them like this. --DAJF (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article contains three (3) paragraphs of actual content. The first is about the company's ownership and would make a nice short section under Rinkai Line, the second is a throwaway single sentence that should be merged into the first, and the third is duplicated word for word from Rinkai Line -- except that the fact that the company makes a loss due to interest costs is now hidden from the Rinkai Line article, giving its readers the entirely mistaken impression that the line is profitable. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the Rinkai Line article, which is all of 6,100 characters long, can't handle one (1) additional paragraph?

I'm kind of tempted to nominate the TWR article for deletion, since with 250 employees and no notable activities outside operating the train line, it would probably fail WP:COMPANY... Jpatokal (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of complaining, why not work to improve either or both articles? Be bold. --armagebedar (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me to revert your split and merge them back together? Since that would, in my opinion, be the best way to improve them. Jpatokal (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bump. I'm going to take Armagebedar's apparent advice and merge the articles back together until there is loud, well-reasoned opposition. Jpatokal (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps make a User page somewhere first to show how the combined article would look? I wouldn't oppose a merged article provided no information was lost, but, as I mentioned before, I can't see at present how the corporate/financial details now included in the company article could all be incorporated neatly into an article about the line. If "merging back" means deleting or losing material, then that is a retrograde step to which I would definitely be opposed. --DAJF (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, judging by the discussion here, there is opposition to simply merging the articles back together, so unless you have some consensus any such merge would probably be reverted. --armagebedar (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Remerge. Unneccessary content fork, as the company is only notable because it operates the line, and this article largely duplicates the Rinkai Line article, except for a small bit of info that could be included there. Split broke a lot of incoming links, too. Poor choice of a split. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Remerge as per Oknazevad. This company operates only one line, like Aoimori Railway Company, which redirects to Aoimori Railway Line. If TWR gets another line, it should be split then, not now. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Remerged and condensed content (two years later). Hope everyone's happy with it. Your Lord and Master (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! Better late than never. Jpatokal (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)