Talk:Light Rail Transit

[1] this seems better to me

1. It's short and concise. Name, city, country, great! Information like "blah blah specific line is actually heavy rail" is information for the articles, if a user came here looking for it, give it to them without explanation.
2. It puts the historically named ones at the bottom. Best information goes at the top.
3. SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to mention the Line 2 of Manila LRT because it's not a light rail despite its name. — Instantnood 09:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. SchmuckyTheCat 09:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed the leading paragraph accordingly. — Instantnood 09:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the leading line to be the same as that in Light Rapid Transit and Mass Rapid Transit. We have quite enough of this kind of lenghty intro texts which dosent tell the reader anything informative. And btw, both systems operated in Kuala Lumpur uses heavy rail too despite being called LRTs, so again, I ask if it is neccesary for long-winded explainations here? This disamg page is to list systems using the name Light Rail Transit. If they are not really light rail, please write those details in Light rail, instead.--Huaiwei 09:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider moving them from list of light rail transit systems to list of rapid transit systems. — Instantnood 10:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)