Talk:Seibu Ikebukuro Line

Question: The Seibu Chichibu Line

"The Seibu Chichibu Line from Agano to Seibu Chichibu Station is an extension. The operation is divided at Hannō Station, where trains reverse."

Why is it an extension and what does "divided at Hannō Station" mean in relation to "where trains reverse".GinAndChronically (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is trying to explain that, although officially the Seibu Ikebukuro Line runs from Ikebukuro to Agano, trains that leave Ikebukuro (with a few exceptions) terminate at Hannō Station. At Hannō it is possible to transfer to a train which travels to Seibu Chichibu (which lies on the Seibu Chichibu Line) via Agano. In this sense, the Seibu Chichibu Line can be seen as an extension of the Seibu Ikebukuro Line since all trains which travel to Agano continue to Seibu Chichibu. To summarize, officially, Seibu Ikebukuro Line runs Ikebukuro→Agano, Chichibu Line runs Agano→Seibu Chichibu; in reality trains run Ikebukuro→Hannō, Hannō→Seibu Chichibu.

I believe that the lines are named in this confusing fashion because the Agano→Seibu Chichibu section was built much later than the rest, however in absence of a suitable source I cannot add this to the article. I hope this clarifies things, JTST4RS (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayama line

In the article, it is said that "Through trains are operated on holidays and days of baseball games of Saitama Seibu Lions." However, if you look at the official timetable of Seibu, there is local and semi-express going to Seibu Kyūjō-mae at least once by hour from 9am to 3pm. The special tran on game days is a Limited Express named "Dome". As I am not fluent in English, I would let someone else make the change and write it properly. Gdore (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error, the page has been corrected. Feel free to edit the article yourself in future; you clearly have significant proficiency in English and any minor mistakes can easily be corrected. JTST4RS (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no support for the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 13:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

---

• Seibu Ikebukuro Line → Ikebukuro LineIkebukuro Line
• Seibu Toshima Line → Toshima LineToshima Line
• Seibu Sayama Line → Sayama LineSayama Line
• Seibu Shinjuku Line → Shinjuku Line (Seibu)
• Seibu Haijima Line → Haijima LineHaijima Line
• Seibu Seibuen Line → Seibuen LineSeibuen Line
• Seibu Kokubunji Line → Kokubunji LineKokubunji Line
• Seibu Tamako Line → Tamako LineTamako Line
• Seibu Tamagawa Line → Tamagawa Line (Seibu)
• Seibu Yamaguchi Line → Yamaguchi Line (Seibu)Yamaguchi Line (Seibu)

– Except Seibu Yūrakuchō Line and Seibu Chichibu Line, the above mentioned ("Seibu XXX Line") aren't the official name for Seibu Railway lines. According to Seibu Railway's official website, the attachment for Seibu Railway route map provides the official name of each line. I hope everyone could accept my suggestion. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia prioritizes commonly recognizable names as established by reliable, independent, English-language sources. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the Seibu official route map shows that format. I think the official route map is better than English-language sources, especially 2nd and 3rd parties. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 15:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Trains in Japan, and WikiProject Trains have been notified of this discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – I hope I'm not being rude, so I apologize for having to be a bit blunt here. Per XtraJovial, primary sources are secondary to WP:COMMONNAME. Just because you think the primary sources are better isn't a valid argument. And as the nominator of move discussions, the burden of proof is on you to present a compelling case that the proposed new titles satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. I feel that creating move discussions without a compelling case is unfair to other editors by making us do your research for you, and puts pressure on us due to the one-week deadline. If you want to create a general discussion with no deadline to decide which names are the common names, you're absolutely welcome to do so, but move discussions are explicitly for when you have a compelling case for your new proposed titles. If you can prove these are the common names, very well, but until you do, I'm going to have to oppose.

My take is that the official company route maps just use the line names by themselves because it's their own system, so repeating their company name for each line is redundant. That says nothing about how these names are used commonly. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There has been controversy between WP:DISTINGUISH, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:CONSISTENT for a period of time. During the move discussion at Talk:Ginza_Line#Requested_move_2_January_2026, the nominator wanted to move these Tokyo Metro lines to "Tokyo Metro XXX Line" for WP:COMMONNAME. At that time, I thought these names ("Tokyo Metro" in "Tokyo Metro XXX Line") were redundant. For other opinions, some of which supported and the others opposed, These titles evantually kept that status with "XXX Line". Back to Seibu lines, unless there is second line named the same name, like Seibu's Ikebukuro Line, there's no necessity to name with operator name in front of Line ("Seibu XXX Line"). Once again, the English Wikipedia doesn't have the same naming policy as Japanese Wikipedia saying (ja:Wikipedia:記事名の付け方/鉄道#日本の路線). However, I'm not sure about moving these controversial pages, especially railway lines with operator name (eg. "Seibu Ikebukuro Line" → "Ikebukuro Line"). Thus, I tried my best to make requested moves to remove the opertor name in titles. By the way, the Chinese Wikipedia community made the consesus of naming these Japan railway lines without operator names in front of "XXX Line" in 2009 (eg. zh:池袋線). Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 07:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact, among Seibu lines, there aren't any railway lines named "Ikebukuro", "Toshima", "Haijima", "Sayama", "Seibuen", "Kokubunji", or "Tamako". For "Shinjuku", "Tamagawa" and "Yamaguchi", there's second name with the same title, these are Toei Subway's "Shinjuku Line", Tokyu's "Tokyu Tamagawa Line", and JR West's "Yamaguchi Line" respectively. For my requested moves, most of nominated titles appear to be unambiguous and prevent from adding unnecessary disambiguation. Besides, I found some sources mention Seibu lines by "Seibu Railway's XXX Line" (eg.) and even "XXX Line" (eg.) Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 08:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over WP:DISTINGUISH and WP:CONSISTENT. The latter two are there to inform WP:COMMONNAME in cases where it alone is insufficient. But even if there are cases where the operator/system name is technically redundant, how the lines are referred to commonly takes precedence, per WP:COMMONNAME. Hence why for example, that earlier discussion decided on retaining "Toei" in the article titles for the Toei Subway lines. If the Seibu lines are commonly referred to with "Seibu" in front, then their article titles should not be moved. But if you can find more common usage that shows that this is not the case, then I will switch my vote.

P.S. Whatever consensus was reached on the Japanese or Chinese Wikipedias does not apply here. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sigh, the title decision for railway lines in Tokyo Metropolis is complex. Many sources mention Tobu, Seibu, Toei, etc. by using "Tobu XXX Line", "Seibu XXX Line", "Toei XXX Line", etc. in order to make tourists and other people understand how to navigate to their destinations by public transportation. For Seibu, regardless of naming "XXX Line" (eg. Ikebukuro Line) by Seibu Railway official, many sources still mention these Seibu lines by "Seibu XXX Line" (eg. Seibu Ikebukuro Line). That makes me speechless. However, among Seibu lines articles, I initially thought that WP:OFFICIAL (Seibu Railway official) might be more suitable than WP:COMMONNAME (2nd and 3rd parties). How do you think about that? @OrdinaryScarlett: Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 10:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Remember that most of these articles have had stable titles for upwards of twenty years - if not more. Many RMs during this "contention" had very weak arguments (from a policy perspective) and only passed due to minimal participation (partially my fault). And many of those RMs were started by you! Unless you want a trip to a noticeboard (which seems pretty likely at this point), stop trying to rule the roost in areas without trying to understand them first. It's an enormous waste of contributor time. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@XtraJovial: Well, I think your advice may be appropriate for me because my logic is different from yours and that my position is different from yours as well ("XXX Line" vs "[Operator name] XXX Line" for titling). However, as these titles have been used for a long time, many readers might have been familiar with those names. Thus, it reflects on me that these requested moves are too difficult to be approved. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 04:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments above (just so the RM doesn't get relisted again) XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.