Talk:Merseyrail

Transit Mode - Commuter Rail, Metro or both?

I've noticed the lead & infobox in this article have recently been changed to state that Merseyrail is a metro rail/metro system rather than commuter rail because that is what the Merseyrail website states/considers it to be. However, I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this change because the previous source in the lead (https://www.railengineer.co.uk/new-merseyrail-connected-trains/) which has been removed by DankJae, does state this is instead a commuter rail system. As I've previously stated in the Talk:Rapid transit in the United Kingdom page (as the transit mode for Merseyrail has been a bit of an issue in the Rapid transit in the United Kingdom page), I'm not sure I can call Merseyrail a true rapid transit system because it is owned by National Rail, some of the lines extend beyond the urban core of Liverpool (to Chester & Southport, both of which are separate to the Liverpool region) and the trains (including the new ones, despite them being named Metro Stadler trains) have a more commuter rail-oriented seating layout.

I might also say that what the transit mode the website or some other sources considers it to be may not always be correct, for instance, the Manchester Metrolink & West Midlands Metro may be considered as metro systems in some sources but they are both tram/light rail systems in reality (the Elizabeth line is probably an even better example as many would consider that to be a metro/underground/tube line but that is a commuter rail line/system). So I'd probably say the lead should be reworded to state that Merseyrail is a hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit system (it previously used to say that before it later got changed to just commuter rail and now metro rail) with the main website and the source which was previously there both being featured. I'd be grateful if anyone can also give their opinions on this matter and if most of you are happy with this systems just being classed as metro rail, then I wont make any changes to it, many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, I wasn't the one that first changed the term, @ADTelo did in this edit. I just cleaned it up and made the additions fit the new source. Agree somewhat that the new sources are less directly describing Merseyrail as the rail engineer source (which I added in the first place), but they do come from Merseyrail itself, and as it was cited, did not contest it. Although they specifically talk about toilets and state other similar metro rail systems, which is not as direct than is the commuter rail network in RE.

Fine with a discussion, I do not take a clear side in these recent edits, so you could boldly revert ADTelo's edits per BRD.

Note, Merseyrail is not owned by National Rail? I just organises ticketing under it. Plus there are proposals to devolve the system. Thanks DankJae 10:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction regarding National Rail. I think I'll see if anyone else adds to this topic/discussion over the next few days and if not, then I'll boldly change it to my suggested change in my earlier comment (hydrid commuter rail and rapid transit or hybrid commuter rail and metro) - I don't think I'm going to entirely revert ADRelo's edit. Broman178 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit", seems a bit WP:SYNTH, I'd prefer just undoing the edit, as the toilet sources are not direct, and probably not the best ones. A footnote could be added following commuter rail. DankJae 10:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the one that originally made the change - my reasoning for doing so is as follows:

• Merseyrail is a high-frequency, separated, partially-underground network using (new) rolling stock from a product family designed for such and used on many metros.
• While it sits annoyingly on the line between rapid-transit and commuter rail, it has much more in common in UK context with rapid-transit (LU, T&W Metro etc.) than it does with most commuter trains in the UK, such as in Manchester and Leeds - this name usually describes mainline services with longer headways and tracks shared with express/freight. It also exists almost entirely in one City Region, only leaving it to serve towns just outside the border, as the Tube does.
• It is documented as one in professional and lay press (Some examples: 1, 2, 3) (although there are of course other articles saying the opposite)
• They are not a traditional NR franchise as they are run under an exemption (although this would in my opinion not stop it strictly being a metro either - for example, Seoul's system is run by their national operator).
• MRE describe themselves as a metro service and are steering policy by this principle (see article citations).

So, in my opinion, if it looks like a duck, is described in the press as a duck, and its owners say that it's a duck (beyond a name, looking at you WY Metro), then it's a duck. I know this is a contentious issue that crops up every now and again - the network does exist on the border of definitions. However, combined with the above, if a reader was coming to this article from Norway or China, they're going to get a much closer idea of what Merseyrail is with the "metro" moniker (high-frequency urban trains) over commuter rail - I think this is why some other-language Wikipedias just flat out call it the Liverpool Metro despite it never having that name. I wish we could put it to bed with "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit" but I think that's way too cumbersome and is the opposite of categorisation - of course, if S-bahns were a known thing in the UK we might have a better solution, but there are definition issues there too. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 13:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ADTelo, I can't comment on the accuracy of the uncited statements as it may be WP:OR unless backed up, even if true, remember WP:NOTTRUTH. While it may look like a metro system, there is a source clearly stating it as just a commuter rail one. Of the sources you have provided (greatly appreciated) they're not as clear as the replaced rail engineer, ITV states Liverpool's new underground metro system, so the underground sections of Liverpool are, but not exactly the entire Merseyrail network. The toilet sources refer to the system in comparison, rather than directly, so cannot be certain. The rail tech source is much better, but is not as clear as rail engineer ("Merseyrail is a"), so a little weaker. If only there were a source settling this.

This old source (once used to incorrectly justify "rapid transit") states Merseyrail and Crossrail are usually sometimes classified as rapid transit systems, exhibiting the characteristics of a rapid transit network. However, the systems are accommodated through the national rail ticketing system, which separates them from the other systems listed below.

So confused where to go (I am not too much in rail classification), we have one clear source stating in the clearest terms Merseyrail is a commuter rail network, but various sources more vaguely and indirectly referring to it or parts of it as a metro system, but another source saying it is clearly not rapid transit, and no source saying it is both, so stating such is WP:SYNTH. DankJae 18:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae You make good points, but I still think that it falls on the metro side of the dial, mostly because of how much it differs from mainline commuter services in most other cities, London excluded. I'm also not so sure about the distinction between the underground and surface sections - they're one and the same system, just as the Tube is.

Perhaps this could be put to a vote? | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 20:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@ADTelo, we have to follow the sources, not what we personally view it as. One source did specify underground, so cannot to be used for the entire network. May be another source needs to be found. DankJae 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't contributed much to this discussion despite being the one who first raised this topic - I have mostly been on a break from Wikipedia. Regarding Merseyrail, the fact that the system reaches two places outside the Liverpool urban area - Chester & Southport and the fact that the trains have an interior which more closely matches longer-distance trains (lack of extensive longitudinal seating & some overhead luggage racks - the latter of which metro/rapid transit systems usually lack) minus toilets means that it would not quite match being a true metro/rapid transit system to me. I would say at the most, Merseyrail is a hybrid between both commuter rail and metro/rapid transit just like the Elizabeth line and perhaps also the East London Line for the London Overground (which originally used to be a tube line) - I probably also would add Thameslink to this as it does act like a rapid transit line in its core section. I would also say that while the Metropolitan line is officially a rapid transit line being part of the London Underground, it probably fits into the hybrid type as well because its long distance to Chesham would match having commuter rail characteristics.

Opinions aside (which would count as original research), the rest of this article also mentions "commuter rail" for the Character section in the infobox and underground commuter rail in the categories at the bottom of the article, so its probably worth thinking about those two bits as well as the lead (I believe in consistency for Wikipedia articles so if we change the lead, then the rest of the article needs to be consistent with it as the lead is only supposed to summarise the information in the rest of the article). The article for the British Rail Class 777 also describes Merseyrail as a commuter rail system (using that same source which was earlier in the lead/infobox of this article) rather than metro even though that new rolling stock is classed among Stadler's Metro family. So regarding sources, I probably have to agree with DankJae that the source mentioning commuter rail is the most reliable source for now but looking at the Elizabeth line article has given me another idea - the lead & infobox in that article mentions the Elizabeth line as being a hybrid urban–suburban rail system and the "Hybrid urban-suburban rail systems" section of the Commuter rail article covers systems with aspects of both rapid transit and commuter rail (with Merseyrail also being featured there). However, I'm also not quite sure if "hybrid urban–suburban rail system" also borders on WP:SYNTH like "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit system" or "hybrid commuter rail and metro system" probably do, otherwise I'm in favour of using a reliable source for the system/transit type for Merseyrail if that idea isn't suitable. Broman178 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178 I wouldn't say no to defining it as a hybrid a la the Elizabeth Line and updating the whole article accordingly. It's not neatly one or the other, but neither is the network. While I'm still on the metro side, and I think the definition may change in the future as the LCR continues its ambition to bring it under full local control, I find this to be a good compromise. Not quite sure what the best wording would be, hybrid metro and suburban rail? Suburban rail providing a metro-style service?| 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 10:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Still, my only issue is that does any source describe it as a hybrid? Or are we synthesising two sources to state a third. DankJae 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae None in particular, so that would probably fall under WP:SYNTH. Perhaps it's worth roping in a more experienced editor for this - there must be a process for when a definition is split like this. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 20:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae Just out of curiosity, could you please tell me if the description "hybrid urban–suburban rail system" would be a suitable description for Merseyrail or do you also think this borders on WP:SYNTH? The reason why I ask this is because "hybrid urban–suburban rail" is what is used in the lead section & infobox of the Elizabeth line article. If this idea isn't suitable then I probably would suggest changing the lead back to commuter rail as it was before (with that source for it) but maybe add a footnote beside it stating that the Merseyrail website describes it as a metro system. Broman178 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, Note WP:OTHERCONTENT, just because it is at Elizabeth line isn't a reason. The two are or can be described differently.

Looking into EL a bit, that description was added just under a year ago, but using a citation which does not support it. TfL and Crossrail, in reference to toilets, describes it as "metro-style", or otherwise just "railway" or "high frequency, high capacity service". It was previously a "suburban passenger service" or "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit service", but both using a source which only describes Crossrail as a "metro". Other sources use either just "commuter rail"[1][2] or just "railway", while those with "hybrid" seem closely worded to Wikipedia, but not for certain. So EL may need a discussion too, and ofc best there not here, it seems there wasn't one at its talk.

Back to Merseyrail, we must follow what the sources use, as stated before some vaguely indirectly describe it as a "metro", specifically referencing its lack of toilets, but one source clearly states it as commuter rail undisputedly. Seem a basic reversion seems to be the best, but open to wait to see anyone else adds to the discussion. I may have missed a source, sorely needed. Regards DankJae 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lots of trains lack toilets - Class 455, for example. That doesn't make the lines that they run along into metro systems. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have found another source which does state Merseyrail is a "local commuter rail and underground network" - https://m247.com/eu/success-stories/mersey-rail/. However, I don't quite know how reliable this source is and if it would be suitable for this article, so I think the best answer may be changing it back to commuter rail as it previously was with that source which supported it (although I think we should wait & see if more people add to this discussion before that). Broman178 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, seems M247 is a cloud services partner? so not exactly transport-related, so probably can't rely on them for the definition of a system.

I'm fine with reverting back to commuter rail, seems there is a small consensus for that? Much more than keeping the edits. DankJae 10:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As no one else has added to this discussion in over two weeks, I have now boldly reverted the lead section back to mentioning commuter rail based on these four reasons - 1) While the system is grade separated, it runs to two places outside the Liverpool urban core (Southport, Chester), 2) the trains have an interior which resemble commuter rail rather than rapid transit, 3) The previous news source for the new trains confirms it is commuter rail - now reinstated (not to mention this discussion has mostly concluded that source is more reliable than the recent toilet source), and 4) the WP article for the new trains does state Merseyrail is commuter rail. One other thing I forgot to mention in my edit summary is that the term "Metro" is a very misused and misleading term as that term can also refer to some commuter rail systems and tram systems rather than just proper metro/rapid transit systems, so even if the Merseyrail website may call it a "Metro", that doesn't mean the system itself is truly a "Metro" system, which prompted me to change it back alongside my 4 other reasons. Broman178 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Merseyrail officially calls itself a metro system. However, not sure over the definitions of Metro + Commuter. See https://www.metro-smart.org.uk/, and the signs at [Headbolt Lane]--- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 10:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade, Merseyrail does use the term "Metro" in branding, but that is probably for marketing reasons rather than what the network actually is? DankJae 11:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, perhaps, but they also are a public entity so I don't really see why they would need to "lie" persay, for marketing. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just adding my more educated view (compared to my previous) on to this, using definitions previously made by Wikipedians on Rapid transit and Commuter rail. It seems like metro is defined as "underground rapid transit systems", and commuter rail as one that "primarily operates within a metropolitan area, connecting commuters to a central city from adjacent suburbs or commuter towns".

With those set as the definitions on-wiki, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that Merseyrail is a commuter rail service, as only portions, mostly under Liverpool, are underground, and a majority of the network being on the surface or above. Further, there is only 4 stops in the "central city" (Liverpool Central, Moorfields, James Street, Lime Street) whereas there is 69 other stations outside of Liverpool. We could further bring up the Passenger figures and show that most people are going from the outer regions, into Central. (Central has 10 million entries/exists in the 21-22 year, no other station has near that high) --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 01:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definitions change all the time and can be contradictory, so we should follow sources specifically describing Merseyrail when they exist, which they do as mentioned above. DankJae 12:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I have now changed the lead section & infobox back to mentioning commuter rail, I think its also worth mentioning that the Merseyrail isn't actually fully grade separated as many people think because the Merseyrail branch to Southport in particular does actually feature some level crossings along the route, for example, the one near Freshfield railway station (I initially thought it was fully grade separated but after looking at the Southport branch in Google Maps, changed my mind after seeing some level crossings along the route), which alongside the other points above does further support the system being commuter rail rather than a metro/rapid transit system.

I might also mention that with the recent extension to Headbolt Lane and with planned extensions to Shotton/Wrexham, Skelmersdale/Wigan Wallgate, Burscough Junction/Preston etc., it definitely is heading towards becoming more like a proper commuter rail (or longer distance rail) system rather than a metro-like railway. I have no wish to add further to this discussion now but I just thought I'd highlight these two final points, as they werent mentioned before. Broman178 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The metro-mayor refers to Meseyrail as a metro. It is hybrid commuter rail rail/Metro, a smaller version of LU. Is clearly a metro in the centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead. The new train are metro class train. It is silly not say it is a metro.

End of. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've really read this discussion carefully before stating your point because plenty of evidence has been highlighted here to prove the system is more like a commuter rail system rather than a proper metro/rapid transit system. And I'd say its far more similar to the Elizabeth line than it is to the London Underground. Broman178 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Line is one line with few branches, bearing no relation to Merseyrail which is a full network. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You could argue that Merseyrail is 2 lines with a couple branches. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade, I assume that excludes the City Line? That is at least three lines itself. DankJae 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As heavily debated on here, I don't really include City Line in the Merseyrail network, but more of the MerseyTravel System. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the monthly debate is here again, I guess it is a sign to make progress on the history article, and possibly consider the main split again.

I'd love the City Line to be part of Merseyrail proper, but it is just not as integrated, and recently seen Merseytravel slowly separate City Line from the rest of the network. DankJae 19:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not here to debate, and shutting up about it now, don't worry. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

NeoJade, you could argue but you would lose. Many have put forward that the Wirral and Northern Lines both be split into two lines each of different names. Then when the Borderlands Line comes in, or parts of it, and extensions to Helsby or Warrington, then matters will have to be reviewed on line names on the Wirral for sure. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I lot of pedantic nonsense on this thread. Merseyrail is a metro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY8oqKasIVM&t=1s

Merseyrail is actually the second oldest underground system in the world.

The first urban railways to incorporate underground tunnels and stations were:

1. 1863 - Metropolitan Railway (now a part of London Underground). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere.

2. 1886 (20 Jan)- Mersey Railway (now a part of Merseyrail). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere. Incorporated the first deep level stations and an extensive under-river tunnel.

3. 1886 (15 March)- Glasgow City and District Railway with one underground station accessed by extensive tunnel under the city centre. Now merged with the North Clyde and the Argyle railway which had one underground station, giving it two underground stations.

4. 1890 - City & South London Railway. 100% underground, 100% electric.

5. 1896 (2 May)- Budapest Line 1 (now a part of Budapest Metro). Had stations and track underground and open to the atmosphere. 100% electric.

6. 1896 (14 Dec) - Glasgow Subway (All stations underground). 100% electric.

7. 1896 (21 Dec) - Liverpool Overhead Railway (Underground Dingle extension), 100% electric.

They are the first urban railways in the world using underground stations and tunnels. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You can call most of this thread "pedantic nonsense" as much as you like but I think enough evidence has been highlighted above to mention why Merseyrail is not a full Metro/Underground railway. At best, Merseyrail is a hybrid between commuter rail and underground/metro much like the S-Bahns in the German-speaking countries, the Paris RER, the Elizabeth Line and parts of the London Overground but it was agreed in this discussion to change it back to commuter rail rather than add the hybrid definition to the lead, so I went along with that at the time. And I'm not sure a YouTube video from a non-verified channel is the most reliable source to use in Wikipedia. Broman178 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm working on a comprehensive copyedit of this article to tidy it up, remove repetition, and improve its overall readability. It seems like the weak consensus here is that it's not a metro, although MR execs have been quoted in the press as describing it as metro-style, something I am looking to include as a compromise to reflect the slight straddling of definitions we find ourselves with (self-contained, franchised by the local govt., etc). For the main definition, I'm torn between commuter rail and urban-suburban rail a la the Elizabeth Line article. I see there is some concern about WP:SYNTH for the latter definition but I see no such concern on that article. Thoughts? 🦆 FuzzyDuzzyDuck 🦆 Quack! 17:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Still have concerns on synth, we shouldn't generate a description we feel best suits it, especially as it has been disputed a lot between editors. Best stick to sources. Once again, EL is not a gold-standard to follow just because no one had disputed it there, as it has been extensively disputed here multiple times. DankJae 22:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Split of History and Future prose

Per long running discussions above, and the creation/development of the article History of Merseyrail, general consensus is that this is better suited in a dedicated article and the split discussion, having been ongoing since late 2023 specifically in relation to this part of the article, has not brought about objection. Per the talk page on that article, I have now moved it to mainspace and split the content from this article. It could do with slightly more being added as a historical summary, perhaps alongside a better lead of the history section. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle, would this be considered the main split from the discussion above. So should the template now be removed? At least for now, hoping the shorter size of this article can make its scope clearer, or whether the original split should be raised again. DankJae 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This thought did cross my mind, but I didn't know which side of the fence to go on (i.e., is the split now concluded, or do we need to separately conclude the original proposal of the network/brand vs train operator). Much of that entire discussion originated from disruptive editing by one individual. While I still in principle support the original proposal of splitting again, I think it may be best to take a step back and try and get the new history article up to a decent standard before any more significant structure changes.

To that end, maybe we can remove the split notice now and let things settle for a bit, perhaps? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Good work on the article, too, BTW. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On that basis I have removed the split tag and we'll revisit some of the original proposal if it seems prudent to do so (and ideally, once the History article is a little more up to scratch). It may end up not being necessary, given removal of that vast chunk of prose makes organisation of the main article a little easier. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree the trim gives more room to explain the complexity of this article’s scope better.

Although should the occasional IP/group or normal editors repeat the clashes of the past. It should still be an option should it be needed in the future. DankJae 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Making sandboxed copy

Hi all,

I'm making a sandboxed copy of this page to which I will trial out some substantial changes. Please feel free to feed back.

The changes I'm looking to trial are:

- Settling the classification of the network as an urban-suburban network, or a self-contained commuter network, or a metro-like network - whatever the consensus is combined with appropriate research.

- Clarifying the status of the City Line - Merseyrail are fairly clear-cut that they no longer consider it part of their network.

- Removing things like random line logos below headings.

The aim is to see how these changes go down before merging them back here. Thanks!

FuzzyDuzzyDuck (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Be bold imo, just go for it if you have any changes to make, I'm sure some of us can, and will, fix any issues we find with it. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 20:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I echo that sentiment. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

MerseyTravel

Hi all,

Thought i'd just make sure everyone is aware, Merseytravel is rebranding as Transport for Liverpool City Region (TfLCR), so articles etc may need to be changed.

I've already added a note in Merseytravel, but we might need to go through and redirect the article etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj7djx0dy9no Jade • Talk • Contributions 02:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@NeoJade, I am not aware tbh, and I hate it lol. The website is still Merseytravel so any change now may be a bit too early. But usually should go through WP:NAMECHANGES, so if like three sources generally use the new name without mentioning the rename, then I'd argue it can be moved, best through an WP:RM. DankJae 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the source it states the rename has not taken place yet, so a bit early. A crest and flag are to be by the end of the year, but no exact date for the actual rename yet. So no moving yet. DankJae 10:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think its going to be more of a thing where new signage will go by the new name and will just slowly replace old stuff. Totally speculation but thats what I'm reading from the articles published about this so far. Jade • Talk • Contributions 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@NeoJade, still the website has not changed, so once it has and then some sources use the new name generally, then a RM can be called IMO. So a few months roughly, probably this year still. Wikipedia in the end follows what sources use not signage. DankJae 11:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)