Talk:Q15079663
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — rapid transit railway line (Q15079663)
description: type of railway line
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “rapid transit railway line” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- rapid transit railway line (Q15079663)
- railway line (Q728937)
- rapid transit railway line (Q15079663)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
rapid transit railway line⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
General comments
[edit]I have created this property because I think it is the simplest way to express that something is a metro line. Should that be considered a subclass of railway line (Q728937) ? The word is very similar in various languages, but I think there is a difference as a metro line refers to the service while a railway refers to the infrastructure - so that two metro lines can share the same railway. --Zolo (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have asked for guidance on Wikiedia (fr:Discussion Projet:Chemin de fer). So it seems that a metro line is not really a railway line. The correct item seems to be transport service itinerary (Q1067164). --Zolo (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the station of the line displayed?
[edit]Doesn't the stations of a metro line display in a metro line page, for example, stations of Line 4 (Q24835582)?--SolidBlock (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
P279
[edit]Not sure that rapid transit train service (Q60442637) is the good subclass of (P279). --Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 04:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Me neither. I think subclass of (P279):railway line (Q728937) was OK.--Geogast 🤲 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bouzinac, Geogast: No, railway line (Q728937) is regarding physical rail and I think this item is about the line/service – just like rapid transit train service (Q60442637). While in some cities those might be same thing for underground lines, for example in Hamburg those are distinct concepts. So either subclass of (P279) is not correct. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed; until now, rapid transit railway line (Q15079663) was used as a hybrid of the physical line/infrastructure and the service. Perhaps, that might be a bad idea. But, no doubt, there are thousands of cases, where railway line (Q728937) is, in fact, understood as the physical line; because thousands of metro station (Q928830) have the statement connecting line (P81) with an instance of rapid transit railway line (Q15079663). That might be bad; but we shouldn't make this huge change after just a small discussion between the 3 or 4 of us in this talk here. IMHO, we should look for a broader consense in this question.--Geogast 🤲 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bouzinac, Geogast: No, railway line (Q728937) is regarding physical rail and I think this item is about the line/service – just like rapid transit train service (Q60442637). While in some cities those might be same thing for underground lines, for example in Hamburg those are distinct concepts. So either subclass of (P279) is not correct. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)