Category talk:City transport timetables

Rename proposal

I don't agree with the proposed rename to Category:Public transport timetables. For all public transport timetables, we have the category Category:Public transport schedules already. This subcategory "City transport timetables" is intended for special types of timetables which are doubtless used in many cities. In many cities and countries, city transport forms a specific integrated system different from the country and intercity transport. --ŠJů (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "city transport" has no definition. I have a bus service that goes from outside my door, travels through the central city, and then out into the country, among the farms. Is that city transport? There are other bus services that are legally totally within a city, but never go into an urban area at all. Is that still city transport?

I guess I simply disagree with you that the distinction between city transport and public transport and intercity transport is clear or defined. Some city agencies or companies may use it as their "trade name", such as "Nottingham City Transport", but that does not mean their definition is the same as of the next city, organisation, or person.

For example, for Nottingham (Google hit #2 on "City transport"), the term includes the whole transport system (including information for private cars) - and as per their website, they operate both local AND intercity buses ("Our Pathfinder and South Notts buses also travel beyond the city boundary to...")

On Wikipedia, "en:City transport" used to redirect to en:Clean Urban Transport for Europe (I have now redirected it to en:Public transport), while en:Urban transport already redirected to "Public transport". Ingolfson (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, "schedules" and "timetables" are not the same. Schedules are the concept, timetables are the graphical representation of (service) schedules. Therefore, Category:Public transport timetables can sit within Category:Public transport schedules without being redundant. Ingolfson (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In some countries, city transport is very strictly defined (including an exact legal definition and different way of official license approval, different way of marking of lines, vehicles and stops, separate bus stations, specific format of timetables etc.) and has very specific character. City transport is quite real phenomenon which should have its own category although some its elements can fall under it fully and some others only partially or marginally (e. g. suburban transport can have some features of city transport). Such boundary or mixed subsystems can have special subcategories if needed. Just even if someday (hypothetically) the city transport will fuse utterly with the regional and long-distance transport in the whole world, the city transport will remain an undeniable historic fact. You are right that at English Wikipedia there is this theme quite neglected and slapdash. See cs:Městská hromadná doprava and anologous Polish and Slovakian article (German and Dutch conception is a bit different) or the category ru:Категория:Городской транспорт and its 8 interwikis.

In some countries, there isn't defined any distinction between "motor coach" and "railcar", in other countries don't exists some common word for both. We need to acquiesce the fact that definitions and realia are various and to reflect all relevant realia in the categorization. A specific phenomenon of the city transport is one of them. Do you want to abolish all "trams" categories only because somewhere there isn't defined a distinction between tram transport and other rail transport or because there exist mixed tram-railway systems? Do you want to abolish all country and nationality categories because some people are cosmopolites and some state borders and states are controversial?

Of course, city buses and city bus lines should be categorized simultaneously under city transport and bus transport. Just as a city rail transport (metro, tram, city railways etc.) should be categorized simultaneously under city transport and rail transport and city ferry should be categorized under ferries as well as under city transport.

Categories which are discussed here are intended for timetables and informatory elements which are specific for city transport or which are clearly intended also for city transport. As far as some timetable or informatory device isn't specific in such way or some local transport system has no specific features of city transport, it should be categorized only under the superior category of "public transport". --ŠJů (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are still not making a good point as to how WE should define it. And you have not shown me an example (it would need to be in English) how somebody else defines it either. At least with "tram" and "rail", there is a good consensus about what is what, and when people are unsure, they can always sort it to what they feel best, or into both. Here, it seems that no one will be certain about the definition! Ingolfson (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Tram" or "rapid transit" aren't defined more exactly than "city transport". City transport (in meaning of public city tranport above all but not only it) is a specific, relevant and really existing phenomenon, that's why it should have its specific category. Such category is similar to most of other categories. It have its own category (not only an article) in 9 wikipedias, in 9 languages. Commons is a global project, its themes aren't restricted to English-language-countries realia. Maybe, "Urban Transport" is also often used term in English?. --ŠJů (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)