Talk:East Japan Railway Company

Kawagoe Line

Kawagoe Line is totally within Saitama Prefecture: I feel it should fall in Kanto category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.4.250.132 (talk • contribs) 17:13, April 4, 2005‎

Looks like all the lines in Kanto region are listed as "Greater Tokyo Area lines". Maybe we should rename the category, or divide it to Greater Tokyo Area and other Kanto region. Kawagoe Line, by the way, is totally within Greater Tokyo, although not within Tokyo proper.--Kzaral 10:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Utsunomiya (Nikko Line) really considered part of the greater Tokyo area? It is 100 km north (at least, on the Tohoku Expressway). Also, the Mito Line, and a few others are not so close either. Should Kanto region be separated again? Neier 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Utsunomiya has pretty much always been counted, and JR East counts it as part of the Tokyo area. Should we not go with the company's decision to include it? The service interval between Tokyo and Utsunomiya is quite frequent, so it seems appropriate. JoeD80 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I separated GTA lines and other Kanto lines. (Yes, I know my reaction isn't terribly quick.) I personally don't think Mito Line is inside GTA, but I followed JR East's designation of 東京近郊区間 (Tokyo Suburban Area). Kzaral 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you count as the Tokyo area I suppose. I have an old timetable from 1944 which counts lines even farther than the current definition -- all the way up to Shirakawa on the Tohoku Line and Ogawago on the Ban-Etsu-To Line was counted as part of the "Tokyo Area." I think this is part of why people now use "Shutoken" vs. "Tokyo." BTW, JR East is extending the current definition farther. JoeD80 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

I seem to have misread WP:NAME which states "Please note, "company", "international" "group" "industries" or similar suffixes are not legal statuses and should be included as specified by the originating business". If anyone wants to undo the renaming please do so. Shawnc 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This was fixed 5 hours after your post. Pianostar9 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of edit?

Hello Azusa2, can you explain this edit? It removed some templates I believe are pertinent. Fg2 (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We can reasonably conclude that this edit was not of good intent (sometimes known as vandalism). :) Pianostar9 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Body of elderly woman found in train station in Tokyo

This incident http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/01/body-of-elderly-woman-found-stuffed-in-suitcase-at-tokyo-train-station may be worth mentioning in this article or one about the station itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Do we feel ready to remove the template message or do we still not have enough sources? Pianostar9 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• JR East E235-0 Series No.13 Ebisu Sta.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Company or Rail Line infoboxes?

There are currently two infoboxes used on this article, when really there should only be one. Which one should be kept? I would argue the Company infobox, as it contains more information and since EJRC is a large company. The other infobox can be incorporated into the body of the article instead. Thoughts? Danners430 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given it’s been two weeks since I raised this issue and there’s been no reply, I’m going to be bold and remove the Company infobox. Danners430 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, You've removed the Company Infoxbox which I would argue is more important as it is a large listed conglomerate. Your original argument was to retain the company infobox and remove the rail one. I've reverted your change. Feel free to remove the rail infobox, but not the company one. (P.S. sorry you ended up not getting any engagement on the talk page, they are often not engaged with) Alex Sims (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox caption

@Maxeto0910 per WP:BRD it should be you taking this to the talk page instead of starting an edit war, but here we are…

Succinct captions are a soapbox on which I have stood many times, and continue to do so in many places. However, in this particular case I believe the removed text does bring value, in making the caption easier to read and understand. The flow of a sentence matters, even when it’s a short caption - “The company headquarters in…” reads better than “Headquarters in…”. Danners430 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you'd read WP:BRD properly, you'd know that what I did with my revert was not starting an edit war but explaining why your argument is not valid from an objective standpoint, which is in accordance with the BRD guideline.

I agree that the flow of reading is important and a factor worth considering when adding captions. However, I don't think that adding redundant information makes the caption read better, far from it: Reducing the information to what is essential keeps the caption simple and concise, looks cleaner, and reduces potentially distracting filling words to a minimum.

However, since my opinion is not more valuable than your opinion, there is no established consensus, which is why it's most objective when we go by what MOS:CAPTION states; i.e., the caption should stay as concise as possible. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree - so my suggestion would be to leave the article as it is, and await input from others. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds sensible: Complying with the general guideline until a consensus justifies an exception. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO the longer caption doesn't, in this case, offer any improvements over the shorter one so we should keep it more succinct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)