Jump to content

Talk:Delhi Metro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDelhi Metro has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
November 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Lines under construction

[edit]

203.187.237.153, I have reverted your change. The official website says this line is not yet fully complete. Please provide reference otherwise. - Ganeshk 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The line is actually complete, and trains have been running (sans passengers) for a while. Formal inauguration was supposed to happen today ([1]). Does anyone know if it really happened? deeptrivia (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, it was indeed inaugurated today: [2]. Shifting to "completed" category. deeptrivia (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were supposed to be two phases of the metro. I think, with the completion of line 3, the Phase I is over, and the phase II has started (to be completed by 2010 commonwealth games). These details can be mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the map displayed of all metro lines underconstruction, the map is missing RK Ashram Marg between Jhandewalan and Rajiv Chowk stations on the blue line. Survivorfreak (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use images

[edit]

I got this response from Ashish Vashisht:

From Ashish Vashisht Tue Jan 3 20:32:49 2006 

X-Apparently-To:	**********[.at.]yahoo.com via 206.190.38.174; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:32:59 -0800
X-Originating-IP:	[206.190.49.178]
Return-Path:	<***********[.at.]yahoo.com>
Authentication-Results:	mta121.mail.dcn.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=pass (ok)
Received:	from 206.190.49.178 (HELO web54608.mail.yahoo.com) (206.190.49.178) by mta121.mail.dcn.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 03   Jan 2006 20:32:59 -0800
Received:	(qmail 68955 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jan 2006 04:32:49 -0000
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;   h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=tNN1/paQPa7SLvG3IbAD7Qz2KL+p0FB6ndbdxl1/5KCXWhgFZnWRgvJV1Q7qqcCS12/I5WfNAfWd3t+jxzxuD/0G0Sn6c2WrEL0Hf3zMskqhSIFvwOw/vAfsBRA/jJSAcjWPk2rYHy1xXS7yiUQq0LfaxrWyfw6282Ab4vdwA1Q=  ;
Message-ID:	<20060104043249.68953.qmail@web54608.mail.yahoo.com>
Received:	from [68.48.7.207] by web54608.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:32:49 PST
Date:	Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:32:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	Send an Instant Message "Ashish Vashisht" <****************[a.t.]yahoo.com>  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more
Subject:	Re: [delhimetro] Delhi Metro is now the collaboration of the week!
To:	 <**********[.a.t.]yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To:	<20060104040042.69236.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Content-Type:	text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:	8bit
Content-Length:	839

Hello,

I allow you to use my photographs from the IRFCA website under the
Creative Commons Attribution (by), Non Commercial (nc), No Derivative
Works (nd) License on Wikipedia.

You should also write to the webmaster at IRFCA informing him that you
will be copying some of the image files from his server, and for
permission to re-use those files. The email address is:
webmaster[a.t.]irfca.org

Ashish

I'll write to the webmaster, and then I guess we can use all those images. deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use images by Ashish Vashisht from IRFCA website

[edit]

We now have permission to use any photos taken by Ashish Vashisht that are on IRFCA's website under Creative Commons Attribution. I confirmed this with both Ashish and the IRFCA webmaster, who added:

"It would be appreciated if you acknowledge the photographs as being from Ashish Vashisht. A pointer to IRFCA would also be appreciated. Please check with me before using any other material (photographs or otherwise) from IRFCA."

I think there are lots of nice photos to be used on the Delhi Metro and related articles that can be picked up from there. deeptrivia (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line colors

[edit]

Hello Ashish, According to the IRFCA website, Line 2 is the 'Blue Line' and Line 3 is 'Yellow line'. I am quoting a few lines from that page,

"Construction on the underground Line 2 (the 'Blue Line') was at an advanced stage by [1/03]. Both..."

"Line 3 (the 'Yellow Line') running Indraprastha - Barakhamba Road - Dwarka - Dwarka Sub City was recently [2003] approved by the Central and State governments."

Is the website wrong? - Ganeshk 01:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Signage on the Metro itself is definitely the other way around. Jpatokal 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Correct colours for the various Delhi Metro lines

[edit]

Here's the article from the Indian Express which gives the correct colours. This information can also be verified from first person accounts on the Delhi Metro discussion group archives. The info on IRFCA website needs to be corrected.

I believe DMRC is somewhat guilty of creating this number vs. colour confusion. They started out giving numbers for each lines, however after the Line 2 (or Yellow Line) was opened, they changed the lines to have distinct colours instead of numbers. Unfortunately the DMRC website does not provide this information at this point. By the way, as most Delhi residents would know, the private buses in Delhi have also had various colourful names such as Red Line, Blue Line etc. --vashisht 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the names of line articles should be changed to refer to the colors: this is in accordance with actual signage on the Metro, and it'll save a lot of renaming work when the next extension opens. Red Line (Delhi Metro) would be unambiguous and in line with current practice (see Red Line). Jpatokal 10:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jpatokal 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

factual error: second rapid transit system in India?

[edit]

"It became the second rapid transit system in India, after the one in operation in Kolkata."

says the article. however the second one to open in india was chennai's mass rapid transport system. delhi's is the second underground network to open in india —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.16.138.242 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

-- What's a mass transport system then? Even Mumbai's rail network should be considered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.89.156 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

loss making

[edit]

any notes on the amount of tax payers money that has been burnt to build this monstrosity? 15L is probably what mumbai harbor line carries in half a day!

"The system turned an operational profit from the first day. ", "The 650,000 passengers we carry each day means 40,000 less vehicles on Delhi roads," [3]
The back of my envelope says that if those 40000 vehicles were cars (and considering the number of passengers, more likely buses), the value of this is $200million a year (given than a car costs $5000 a year to run). That's not including the road costs, health costs, air pollution costs etc. Alternatively, we can use $0.5 per passenger mile(the largest amount deductable - actual cost is more like $1.2/pm), assume that the trips are all 2 miles and get $650000 a day in economic value ($237 million a year). The interest on $2.4billion is about $72million (3%), so it's clear to me that this is an economically sensible investment. --Jaded-view (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blv you are comparing the system with other other forms of transportation. The original post is asking it versus existing mass transit systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=173 a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious reference, overhead lines are by no means obsolete, just like bridges aren't obsolete, nor freeway flyovers (given the three times cost increase to go underground, it is wise economics to go overhead... The very thing the original poster was complaining about). You can't compare against existing system which have been in place for over a hundred years - it takes many years for people to adjust to any new transport system, especially one that involves a mode shift. 650000 people per day is a reasonable number for any transport system. Perhaps you can find a more objective assessment? You might compare to the cost of building a freeway in the same city, and the number of people that serves.--Jaded-view (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costs

[edit]

This article is really not very useful unless it has reliable reporting on both constuction/start-up and maintenance costs. And info on subsidies required. ericbritton (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Incorporated a section on this, will expand as more information becomes available. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System?

[edit]

Where does this "Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System" name come from? As far as I can see, the Delhi Metro website consistently uses the name "Delhi Metro", and it's certainly the more common name per WP:NAME. I will move the article back unless there are objections. Jpatokal (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yup, its better to move it to delhi metro. Bharathmeister (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Extensions: necessary?

[edit]

This section (on Phases 3&4) seems overly speculative and unnecessary on the page as it merely clutters up the article. Perhaps this could be better summarised in a couple of lines rather than the cumbersome lists? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's speculative, since it appears to be sourced to the Delhi Metro's official site, and esp. Phase 3 is already actively being worked on. Some clarification of how carved in stone the lines are is necessary though. Jpatokal (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, since details of the lines are not quite clear (the map is a reasonably old one, and alignments have been drastically revised in the past) I suggest that the lists be done away with and the areas proposed to be connected summed up in a paragraph. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than two weeks after removing the section beyond Delhi borders from the Phase III routes, the information needs to be retyped out. Delhi Metro phases are never concrete till they are complete. For instance, the Violet Line. It was only approved after phase II had commenced construction. Likewise, other routes may be added on. It would be good to avoid being rash in editing documents. [1] 220.255.2.54 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my preference is to remove information ruthlessly unless it's still up to date, since otherwise the article will soon be cluttered with tons of would-be extensions that never came to light. Eg. the Faridabad bit was supposed to be under construction by now, but the latest news articles show that it's still in the permit phase. Jpatokal (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit too ruthless don't you think? A one-liner could've remained instead. 220.255.2.41 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whats there in adding about the future lines and extensions. And 220.255.2.54 the Phase-II lines were added or extended at the last moment because of the CWG. This will not be the case in Phase-III and the lines which are approved are more or less final and Jptokal Faridabad line was delayed to lack of space and problems of land acquisition for the depot. You are right it should have been under construction as of now but got delayed consistently. However, all hurdles for the line have been cleared and will be done in this phase. Now we have to wait for the GoM to approve and final approval from JICA, then a table can be created with length of line/extension and no. of stations. Till then there is no problem in current content. Thanks. WorLD8115 (TalK) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think this article proves that the phases will continously be updated as they have begun, demonstrated by this article. The last line of the last paragraph states "Sources, however, said that with Delhi Metro planning to start work on phase III in stages, the alignment could be added later in the project timeline". This shows that the phases are not fully confirmed till complete, ala phase II's Violet Line case. 220.255.1.76 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HD/2011/04/27/Article//004/27_04_2011_004_003.jpg

Akshardham Metro Station

[edit]

An update needs to made to this article about the opening of the Akshardham Metro Station. The station is the last node of the blue line. The World 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per summary style guidelines, articles about individual stations would be more appropriately linked to or mentioned on the articles for the specific lines on which they are located. Feel free to add the information to Blue Line (Delhi Metro), which this article links to. Relevant information regarding the latest extension has already been incorporated into this article. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I didn't know that such an article existed The World 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Tables

[edit]

Please refer Wikipedia:When_to_use_tables before inserting images in tables. Iapain wiki (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline mentioned above does not make any mention of images being inserted into tables along with content. The recommendation it makes is not to use single-cell tables to float images. Also, the present resolution of the map seems a bit too large for a normal screen - IMHO, the article should only display a visible thumbnail, and readers can click on the thumbnail to enlarge it if necessary. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding resolution: it's okay to have smaller images but do not use a single image spanning rows and columns. Iapain wiki (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

The links to the sub-articles on the various lines of the Metro should use the Main template, rather than linking from the table itself. This would avoid overlinking, and comply with the requirements of summary style. Also, the only rapid transit FAs that have more than one line - namely, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and SkyTrain (Vancouver), which could be used as models for this article - follow this format of using the {{Main}} template. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated changes required

[edit]

In the article, it is stated that "as of January 2010, Phase I and II are completed." But clearly, other parts of the article (including the metro map) are still stuck in July 2009. Please change this.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read a bit more carefully: it says "the whole of Phase-I and parts of Phase-II are complete". Jpatokal (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides what Jpatokal has clarified, the map was up-to date as of January 2010 (when the last extension to Anand Vihar was opened). Could you point out specific instances of facts within the article that need updating? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Delhi Metro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comment: Funding section conviniently forgets to mention Japan's contribution. Looks like someone went to great lengths to remove any mention of Japan's role in funding the metro. A real shame since the metro would probably not be there without Japan's contribtuion. 65.51.218.48 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by an anonymous editor. Since a user account is required to conduct a review, I have left the comments as such, which could still be utilized to improve the article further, but the review is still open and seeking a valid reviewer. WTF? (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article seems a bit short, and lacks some coverage of some areas I would like to see more about. Two articles I would recommend to look at for examples of good metro articles is SkyTrain (Vancouver) and Copenhagen Metro. In particular, the lead is far to short, history section "stops" in 2002, and the network section needs to be expanded considerably. There are also a few MOS and other issues as mentioned below.

Comments
  • The lead is very short, see WP:LEAD. It should give a good summary of the article, not just a few lines.
Expanded. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not put company names in italics; see WP:ITALICS.
 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, locale should also mention the country
 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid links that link back to this article, such as 'DMRC'.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not force image sizes; do to accessibility reasons, some people may want larger or smaller images as set in the preferences.
 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding ref 8 (as used in the history section), this is not how referencing is done on Wikipedia. Since it is a 15-page article, it is not necessary to include pages; however, if you want to, create a 'bibliography' section under the references, put the article there, and use separate ref to denote the exact pages.
 Done Page reference dropped. Intentionally done as a seperate edit in case anyone disagrees. -MK 10:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But please clarify as to how else the {{Rp}} template is to be used. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is fine, but stops abruptly in 2002. The history should continue past the opening of Phase I, and explain further planning and construction.
Further construction, planning etc. has been described in the Network section. Is it necessary to repeat it here? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All values need to be converted to imperial units (don't blame me, but the Americans don't understand international standards). Use {{convert}} for easy conversion; this also applies to tables.
 Done Conversions in tables left out as it clutters up the tables (as in Vancouver Skytrain) but the figures (along with conversions) have been mentioned in the write-ups on each line. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The network section is too thin. Take a look at the network section in the SkyTrain article, or the route section in the Copenhagen article. In both cases there is a multi-paragraph description of the route/network. The route should be described in addition to the technical aspects (gauge, power supply etc).
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large parts of the network section is referenced.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid the use of boldface within the tables.
Couldn't find any. Can you please provide one instance. I can cover the rest --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use an endash (–), not a hyphen (-), when saying "from/to" or "between", see WP:DASH.
 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have right-aligned the map and placed it at the top of the network section.
 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there one section with "future extensions" and one for "route under construction"? All future plans should be placed in the same section.
 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never use 'crore' on Wikipedia. While common in India and a few surrounding countries, no-one has ever heard of it in Europe or North America. Stick to common terms like thousand, million and billion. Also, do not use Rs., but the ISO code 'INR'. Conversion to US$ can be very biased and can fluctuate a lot; the current conversion has too many significant digits, and I would advise to avoid currency conversions at all (though I will not hold that against the article as part of the GA review).
The conversion template {{INRConvert}} uses "Rs" - I've requested for it to be fixed. Also, the original sources in some places use crore, and WP:ENGVAR seems to suggest that it is fine. Further, conversions to millions/billions have been provided in each instance of crore 's use. I've also added {{Indian English}} to the talk page, to clarify matters. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never use an ampersand (&) in prose; use 'and'.
 Done Couldn't find any. Perhaps already fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need to link to English; and if you do, don't link to 'British English', but 'English language'.
 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this to say that Google Transit is the only source to navigation information?
No, it just happens to one of the sources on which information was available. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either under network or operations, could there be a section about stations, sticking the list of stations in a {{main}} template?
 Done No separate stations, but link to the list provided. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The security section isn't referenced.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ticketing system needs to be slightly revamped, removing boldface.
 Done Was already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Delhi metro smart card.jpg is clearly copyrighted by the Delhi Metro. Mark it as such, and add a free use rationale, and I will permit its use here, although it is a border-line case.
The photograph was taken by another user and licensed under GFDL - can I make changes to the license? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Delhi metro token.jpg is very bad quality; not only does the token only take up a small fraction of the image, but the image is underlit, and therefore has very low quality, making it impossible to see any details of the token itself. I would recommend that the image simply be removed from the article.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I to understand correctly that there is no monthly pass or similar? This may be the case, just not the way I'm used to things being.
Yes, there is no monthly pass. Smart cards (mentioned in the article) are available for longer durations of travel. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a hyphen cannot be used for punctuation. Chose between an endash and an emdahs, see WP:DASH.
 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps 'safety' is a better word than 'issues'.
Sections reorganised. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If using US date syntax, there is always a comma (or period) after the year, not just before (i.e. Month DD, YYYY, ) Similarly, never put a -th ending on the day.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't think these malfunctioning train incidents are notable. Crashes resulting in a write-off or non-suicide fatalities would be, but not otherwise.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Phase I' is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized.
 Done Could not find any instances. May have been previously fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • '3.2 metre' should have a hyphen in it. As it also should be converted, use {{convert|3.2|m|adj=on}}
 Done Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to make separate article about the two classes of rolling stock. (not a GA criteria at all, just an idea).
  • Avoid 'at present' and similar. Instead, use 'as of 2010' or similar.
 Done Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last ref under 'rolling stock' is a bare link.
 Done fixed that and other free formatted refs using cite-web. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'automatic train control' is a common noun and should not be capitalized. The corresponding article should be moved as well.
 Done already fixed. Not sure if moving corresp article should be in scope here. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'TETRA' should not be in italics, nor anything else in italics in that section.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Delhi Metro in popular culture' is at the verge of the limits, see WP:TRIVIA. In general, just being featured in a movie is not sufficient for mention, but if there is an film which centers around the system, then it might be worth mentioning, albeit perhaps in the history section. The bit about filming and cost could go into the operations section. Mention of particular films might be worthy of inclusion on the articles on each station.
Mention of specific films removed, general vital information retained. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the 'see also' entries, as they are all either mentioned in the prose, or in the navboxes.
 Done already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Badarpur' and 'Ghaziabad' link to disambiguation pages.
 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 22 is dead (see here)
 Done No dead links found -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the references are not up to standard: bare links are not good enough.
 Done Fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics should only be used for magazines and newspapers; just state DMRC, not "official website of DMRC".
 Done pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links two and three are not really acceptable. Feel free to include them as relevant references.
 Done pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very interesting and well-written article, although somewhat short in some places. I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed, and I've raised a couple of queries. Could you please clarify my doubts and verify whether the changes are up to the mark? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late reply. The lead is still rather short; a more appropriate length would be similar to that of Copenhagen Metro. Btw, you don't have to reference information in the lead if it is mentioned other-place in the article. My main concern about the lead is that it presents a lot of less relevant information (that the Kolkata came first, who opened the line etc) while leaving out important information such as length, which boroughs/areas it serves, technical summary perhaps (voltage, power output), and mention all the lines, current and future. 'Rapid transit' should be linked at first mention and avoid using 'currently' in prose (unless referring to now, but not in the past; rather than now, but no in the future).
 Done --WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the ticket image, you (or anyone else) than DMRC cannot say "I'm author of this picture." if you take a ticket and scan it. Clearly it is a copyvio. As I mentioned above, at minimum mark it as copyrighted and add a fair use rationale, and then perhaps it is suitable. You might want to read more at Wikipedia:Non-free content. I asked an experienced "image lawyer" to look at it, and he deleted the image as a clear case, stating that it does not meet of free image policy. Wikipedia has stated that copyright is important for us, and something we will respect.
Image deleted. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the documentation of {{Rp}}, you will see that this is indented for works that are cited a lot (starting in the 10s and upwards into the 100s). This is not the case in this article, as {{Rp}} is mainly meant to be used as Harvard style. Some quotes from the documentation: "This template should not be used unless necessary." and "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read,"
 Done Thanks for the clarification - it has been replaced by a Harvard reference. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*There are a bit too many instances of bullet points; these should never be used for longer section of prose. Definitively remove them from 'rolling stock' and 'ticketing', and I would have preferred them removed from 'planned extensions' and 'network'.
 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In GA/FA articles, it is not normal to include a "in popular culture" section. If there have been written two books about the metro, either use them as references, or include them in a "further reading" section. Similarly, it is not common that quality articles with a large scope (i.e. megastructures, to use a buzzword) like this contian mention of all documentaries or films which have been made or mention them. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been overloaded with unencyclopedic information like this in the past, but this is not normally permitted in quality articles.
  • Some of the references are missing accessdate, a few news items (for instance ref 3) lacks date, and . The IMDb ref cannot be used, because the only mention of the metro is based on a reader review. This fails WP:RS. Ref 68 is a bare link.
 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use all-caps in references, even if the source used them. All-caps is typography, not spelling or grammar.
 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links should be formatted as "official site" or "official website".
 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand why there are "general references" in this article. All citiations need to be in-line, and as far as I can see, there are no indirect references to those. They are probably better used as external links.
 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conversions to US$ have too many sigificant digits.
 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing the article. It has been five weeks since the initial review, and ten days since the last amendment of comments from me. The general rule is that is an article cannot be fixed up to meet the criteria within a week, it should be failed. Given the exhaustive time that has passed, and the lack of compliance with standards for popular culture-related issues, I am forced to fail the article. On the good side, the article has been significantly improved through the process, so it has by far not been wasted. Arsenikk (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments, which were quite useful. Unfortunately, some of the issues could not be addressed in time. I will renominate the article after making all the necessary changes and further improvements – would you be amenable to taking up the review then? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is better to take the time to fix an article until it is all ready and then re-nominate. I will consider re-reviewing a renomination it when the time comes (it depends on my available time and mood). Arsenikk (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation to passengers suffering due to negligence of Delhi Metro

[edit]

I do not see any input with regards to any Claims Tribunal having been set up by DMRC with respect to paying the damages for compensating suitably the injuries suffered by passengers due to negligence of DMRC. Can some one update me on that. Sksc1470 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Delhi Metro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Infobox: it should be 'National Capital Region, India' not 'National Capital Region (India)' (pipe the link)
  • Leave out the 'http://' in the web site, use the format [http://www.delhimetrorail.com www.delhimetrorail.com]; it looks a lot more aesthetic.
  • Concerning 'between 6:00–23:00', try to avoid combining wording and use of symbols. I.e. as a standalone, 6:00–23:00 is fine, but in prose, use 'between 6:00 and 23:00'.
  • '25-kilo volt' should be '25-kilovolt'.
  • 'AC' and 'Hz' should probably be spelled out at first mention.
  • The sentence "and has carried over 1.25 billion commuters since its inception, more than the country's total population." is rather fuzzy. First, lifetime ridership is actually fairly trivial, and requires frequent updates (the figure is for instance out of date about once a month (by which another 0.01 billions commuters will have taken it). Also, the last fragment sounds like it is taken out of a Trivial Pursuit question, rather than an encyclopedia.
  • Any particular reason 'E. Sreedharan' is referred to without his first name, but only an abbreviation?
  • 'Calcutta Metro' should be wikilinked the first time. Also, it is first called Calcutta and then Kolkatta. Please be consequent.
  • Who described it as "nothing short of a miracle"? This should be mentioned inline, in addition to the reference. It can be as sort as "...by BusinessWeek".
  • The article uses both the dating formats DD Month YYYY and Month DD, YYYY. Stick to one.
  • When "standard gauge" is being used as an adjective, it should be hyphenated (e.g. "...the second standard-gauge corridor...")
  • There is no prose about the Airport Express Line, despite that it is scheduled to open this month.
  • Should be 'between 6:00 and 23:00', not 'between 6:00 to 23:00'. ('to' is used in conjunction with 'from', while 'and' is used with 'between').
  • Regarding the things about women-only coaches, I know that this was common practice in Europe during the 19th and early 20th century, so the statement is rather blunt. Rather say that it is the second current or new system to feature this.
  • 34 m under "accidents" needs to be converted to imperial units.
  • Why on earth is "Rolling stock" capitalized in the middle of a sentence?
  • "microprocessor controlled" should be hyphenated.
  • First mention of closed-circuit television should have "(CCTV)" behind it.
  • Rollin stock is generally not regarded as part of the infrastructure (which is normally reserved for the permanent way).
  • The text mentions some 6-car trains, but these are not mentioned in the infobox.
  • "Central Secretariat - Qutub" should have an endash (–) instead of a hyphen (-).
  • There are very few images towards the top of the article, and it is a bit crowded towards to the bottom. Feel free to add additional images.
  • Ref 45 is dead.
  • Instead of 'Official site of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC)', just use 'Official site'.

Placing on hold. Looking a lot better than the last time I review it. Most of the stuff above is just details, and the article will pass once they have been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Most of the above concerns have been addressed, replies to the rest below:

  • E. Sreedharan follows the title of the linked WP article, which in turn is named per WP:NCCN – he is most commonly referred to with the initial.
  • The Kolkata Metro was known as the Calcutta Metro until 2001; consequently references to it during the initial construction period of the Delhi Metro (1998-2001) use the old name, to avoid anachronisms. I presume you meant consistent when you stated consequent :-)
  • This article primarily deals with the operational portion of the network and in order to maintain compliance with WP:SS and WP:CRYSTAL, under-construction as well as future/proposed lines are mentioned only in brief. In particular, a link to the main Delhi Airport Metro Express article has been provided and a summary of the line's essential details is provided in the table. Detailed information will be added once the line opens.
  • Should Rolling stock be moved off to a separate section? For accounting purposes (as I could make out from the annual report), rolling stock is counted together with the rest of the infrastructure (permanent way, stations etc.) while assessing asset value, depreciation etc.
  • Ref 45 is quite accessible – were you referring to something else?

Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late answer. Please note that a line under construction does not fall under CRYSTAL. Future events may be written about, however, speculation about their outcome is not. In this case, any line under construction will have a host of verifiable facts (such as length, no. of stations, budgeted costs etc). This are not speculation, but, if referenced, statements of facts. Regarding rolling stock, accounting has nothing to do with operations; there is a difference between 'investment' and 'infrastructure'. All investments will have a depreciation, but that does not mean they should be in the same section on Wikipedia. Ref 45 is fine now, perhaps it was out of order for a day (that sometimes happens). Arsenikk (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SBC-YPR (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

manufacturer

[edit]

There is nothing about the manufacturer and how the coaches were transported. Challiyan (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

[edit]

This is with respect to the recent changes in the Delhi Metro article. The following changes have been made.

  1. Removing the image from the infobox.
  2. Introduction of route map of line in the Delhi Metro article.
  3. Removing the network map from the main table.

For the first change I referred few GAs such as Oslo Metro, Copehagen Metro. Some use img+logo in infobox and some use just logo in the infobox. I oppose the second change as there is no need for adding the route map of a line as it is already prsent in the resp. line article and it makes the article difficult to read. As for the third change it doesnt really matter where to put the network map img.

Please express your views so that the necessary changes can be made for the article to remain a WP:GA. Thanks. WorLD8115 (TalK) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for the infobox, just the logo is enough. It gives a more standard look. There is plenty of space for showcasing images in the article.
I have removed the route maps from the main article. Although I feel that it should be present in a collapsed form.
The Network map completely spoils the formating of the table. It serves its purpose as a thumb on the right.--ashwinikalantri talk 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:D M.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:D M.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Station count

[edit]

The article says 142 stations open after the completion of Phase-II, but Hindustan Times says 145? [4] Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the station count is 146 (137+9 interchange stations).WorLD8115 (TalK) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

n:Delhi earns UN carbon credits September 26, 2011 resource

[edit]

{{Wikinews|Delhi earns UN carbon credits|Delhi earns UN carbon credits}} 99.181.150.29 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Images789.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Images789.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dmrcorange.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Dmrcorange.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 coach trains on yellow line.

[edit]

Introduced 24th December 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-Metro-starts-eight-coach-service/articleshow/17745209.cms Someone please update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipsin (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Details of Metro Third Phase"

[edit]

Please add "Details of Metro Third Phase". ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/delhi/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/delhi-metro/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Delhi Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Delhi Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 reverting updates

[edit]

please talk to Sro23 because he keeps on reverting my updates to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.216.173 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

[edit]

please can you revert the edits to page to the one with bigger information? 88.109.198.144 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were you, by any chance, the user that was blocked for edit warring on this page? JTP (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - it appears you were - and have now been blocked - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Delhi Metro. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Delhi Metro. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check recent changes at [5]

[edit]

I don't live in Delhi but I've found a significant change in this article, can someone check their reliability.--IM3847 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verified it's correct Tuwein (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

[edit]

Request received to merge articles: Mangu_Singh into Delhi_Metro; dated: January/2019. Proposer's Rationale: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Discuss here. Tuwein (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of animation to Grey line in 2019 needed

[edit]

Based on the page a grey line was added in October of 2019 but the animation of the metro system over successive years does not have it.


Sorry new user here. MasterTruman03 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"PDM University Modern Industrial Estate metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PDM University Modern Industrial Estate metro station. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#PDM University Modern Industrial Estate metro station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 250+ station articles listed in List of Delhi Metro stations and they may have sponsor redirects. Articles with mention of the sponsor name (even though unsourced) are potential sponsor redirects. See Honda 2 Wheelers Delhi University North Campus, Dabur ITO, Wave City Center, etc. The Delhi Metro website has published this advertiser's list where 53 stations and their sponsors are listed under SEMI NAMING/CO-BRANDING. We need to decide how to treat such redirect discussions. Is using the sponsor name with the station name legitimate as per Delhi Metro? If it is, then where apart from the station name board is the prefixed name used? Jay (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Implementation of Phase-III of Delhi Metro by DMRC

[edit]

On 2nd December 2021, the CAG published a report on the implementation of Phase-3 of Delhi Metro. The report highlighted quite a few issues with the execution of the project. So I was wondering if the things mentioned in the report could be included in the Delhi Metro page somewhere (probably in the Problems section)? Here[1] is the link for anyone interested in reading the report.

References

  1. ^ "Report No.11 of 2021 - Performance Audit on Implementation of Phase-III, Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System by DMRC, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs". cag.gov.in. Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 2 December 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2022.

Fares and revenues

[edit]

This article is good on the lines, stations, history of construction, train controls, but says almost nothing about fares, fare collection, and revenues compared to operating costs. There is mention that fares are distance based; does the rider present token or card to a machine on entering and exiting, when the fare is subtracted? What do those machines look like?

The discussion of finances is brief and uses acronyms that are not common. I added what I think they mean. Does this transit company pay taxes, though it is government-owned? Quite confusing. Revenue does not cover operating cost, I believe. Often among transit operators that shortfall is expressed as fare box ratio, the percent of annual fare revenue divided by the annual operating budget. It is not clear if the system is expected to cover its capital budget from fares, or from other sources of revenue. The graph with a line labeled as Profits, that was surprising and confusing. I hope someone knowledgeable on the revenue and fare collection can make these topics clearer to people who do not live in Delhi. - - Prairieplant (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited prose throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi_Metro&oldid=1259198112"