| Revision as of 03:26, 22 December 2005 editHuaiwei (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,504 edits enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:43, 22 December 2005 edit undoEnochlau (talk | contribs)18,866 editsm revert: yes i am an admin, check for yourself. you are the only who voted in favour. the consensus is definitely to NOT MOVE. DO NOT REVERT.Next edit → | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
| ==Requested move== | ==Requested move== | ||
| The requested move was '''unsuccessful'''. The discussion can be found ]. I note that I voted in this discussion, but consensus was definitely to keep the article at the current location, with only one supporting vote. ] (]) 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| MTR is not a proper noun; according to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, article titles are not capitalized unless they are proper nouns.--] 18:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :What mean? How come it ain't a proper noun? -- ] 18:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::MTR is a proper noun and it's operated by ]. As formerly the name is named as ''Mass Transit Railway'', however this name ''(Mass Transit Railway)'' is no longer used after the privatisation of MTR Corporation. --] ⇔ ] 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a request to move this page, and not the page on the Corporation. They are two different things altogether. MTR is an abbreviation, and is not a proper noun.--] 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm a little confused by your claim that "MTR is not a proper noun". That makes absolutely no sense. Aren't we discussing the move from "MTR" to "Mass Transit Railway" instead of "MTR" to "Mtr"? ] 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah I just noticed this error moments ago, so pardon me for that.--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Votes === | |||
| *'''Support''': as above--] 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. MTR is how it is called and branded. Nobody uses its former full name. Compare this with ]. — ]] 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. As the comments mentioned above. --] ⇔ ] 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' {{User:PZFUN/signature}} 19:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I would strongly appreciate if reasons may be given. I am sure the admins would appreciate it too.--] 19:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *<del>'''Oppose'''</del> <ins>'''Weak oppose'''</ins>. Initialisms should be capitalized; surely you don't propose that it be referred to as "mtr" instead? — ] ] 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **This move request is to "Mass Transit Railway", and not "Mtr".--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***I understand, but your justification for the move is "MTR is not a proper noun; according to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, article titles are not capitalized unless they are proper nouns", in which you complain about the title's capitalization. To then suggest "Mass Transit Railway" as an alternate title because you feel the current title is incorrectly capitalized seems to me to be a ''non sequitur''. — ] ] 04:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****As I already alluded above, I nominated the move based on a wrong reasoning (which I copied without thinking from your nomination for SARS, which you would probably have noticed.--] 11:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *****Huh...I either didn't notice that or saw it before but forgot by the time I wrote the comment. Based on the change in premise, my original objections no longer apply; however, now that I have read through the discussion, I find myself convinced by the others' arguments—vote changed to ''weak oppose''. — ] ] 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. I find the evidence presented below, in particular ]'s table, to indicate that a page move should not be effected. ] 23:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I have already discussed the inapplicability of Shinjiman's table in detail. He was talking about ], and not on this article at all. I am asking for the rail system's page to be moved, and not of the corporation in question.--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. It is a "stool-stirring" act I'd say. This is the original name! -- ] 07:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Original name of? Proof? Mind defining "stool-stirring", btw?--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''': MTR is more common with Hongkongers and toursits alike and almost everyone. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **"Common" names arent always the most appriopriate for wikipedia, especially when it comes to claiming ownership over abbreviations.--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Huaiwei, I'm being neutral. Not taking any sides at all. Official documents and website use MTR not Mass Transit Railway. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****Why do you bother to vote if you are being nuetral? Official documents and website '''do''' use both MTR '''and''' Mass Transit Railway as evidenced below.--] 13:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *****You've got the wrong meaning, as in I'm not siding anyone here. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***** (Whoops, I had written this before, but I somehow reverted myself, stupid rollback link) As Terence voted oppose instead of neutral, I think what he means is that he is trying to be objective? Which is what we really need at the moment? ] 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ******I'm suppose to be on a vacation --] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *******I would still expect votes to be clearly explained thou, be it for or against.--] 11:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': There is a not-small-proportion of HKers who don't even know what MTR stands for... ] | |||
| **As above. There is a not-small-proportion of the world's citizens who dont know MTR only refers to a HK subway system too.--] 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***This is not a valid argument per se. I can also say some people did not know what is a subway, but they prefer Metro or some name else. This argument is pointless I think, and the name change itself is unneccessary. --] 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Sorry, but '''oppose''', for the above reasons. - ] 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', MTR is a common word with daily use in Hong Kong. Tourists will also recongise the 3-letter combination as the famous means of transport here. Moreover, the company itself is called '''MTR Corporation'''. It is not appropiate to change the name. --] 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Once again, why do people argue that the MTR Corporation cannot operate a Mass Transit Railway, and must only operate an MTR?--] 12:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***You say "operate a Mass Transit Railway". Do you mean that there are more than '''one''' Mass Transit Railway? If so, why don't you start a new page titled Mass Transit Railway to place what you mean there? | |||
| ***According to MTR website, it said '''the MTR Railway''' when it recongises its railway operation. MTR becomes the brand name after the listing of the stock. --] 17:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****MRT Corporation was listed. Are you able to list a rail system? The MTR website may refer to its as the MRT in most instances, but that is common when it comes to abbreviations. It clearly also mentions Mass Transit Railway in other places, something some of you seem to be avoiding admittion to.--] 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *****Despite the fact that they are both referred as MTR and Mass Transit Railway, I still don't see the neceesary points to support your motion. Why is it so important to change such recognisable name? Is it just better to create a page of Mass Transit Railway and make it redirect to MTR? It's just a pure conjecture, with the "rules" of Misplaced Pages in mind, without considering the actual usage of the loanword and the effect of the MTR brand name in the community and around the world. --] 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ******If I need to restate some of the points raised in reaction to your points above, the MTR is an abbreviation which may refer to multiple objects. Unless it is as prevalant as the ] for instance, we should avoid monopolising common article names for specific items which are far less relevant to the wider masses. How would we like ], ], ], ], ], etc, all becoming articles perculiar to just one rail system, even thou The Tube is quite well known in English to refer to the London system in particular, while the Métro is quite clearly the one in Paris? I cannot find a single rail system monopolising a common name, and that includes some of the most established subway systems around the world. On what basis, then, should MTR make an exception? Is the MTR an extablished word in English to refer only to one rail system, and has it become more extrenched then the Tube or the Métro? Recognisable? To who? Demonstrate it please.--] 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| Verifications please?--] 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Don't think it'd be its present official full name. — ]] 18:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. You just provided support to the fact that MTR is an abbreviation for Mass Transit Railway. You even have a Mass Transit Railway by-law clearly indicating that "Corporation" = the '''MTR Corporation Limited''' while "railway" = the '''Mass Transit Railway'''.--] 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Before the rebranding, MTR is actually an abbreviation. And MTR is not an abbreviation after the rebranding. See for details for the introduction of MTR.--] ⇔ ] 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{start box}} | |||
| ||'''Time'''||colspan=2|'''Name'''||colspan=2|'''Operator''' | |||
| |- | |||
| ||Before rebranding||Mass Transit Railway||地下鐵路||Mass Transit Railway Corporation||地下鐵路公司 | |||
| |- | |||
| ||After rebranding||MTR||地鐵||MTR Corporation||地鐵公司 | |||
| |- | |||
| ||After privatisation||MTR||地鐵||MTR Corporation Limited||地鐵有限公司 | |||
| {{end box}} | |||
| :Rebranding of the '''Corporation''' dosent mean the system itself is also renamed. The sources provided by instantnood above validates my point.--] 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You appear to have a key difficulty in differentiating between a corporation's name and that of the rail system. This article is clearly about the rail system, and its name is not neccesarily affected by the name change of the company. gives no validation that MTR no longer stands for Mass Transit Railway, and even gives verification that it does so, for I clearly see "The principle business is to operate '''mass transit railway''' system".--] 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The company, nor anybody else, is still calling the metro system with its former full name, except the by-law and the ordinance. Is your next target the ]? ] still exists as a subsidiary of the group. What about the ], the ] and the ]? — ]] 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, lets show some level of acceptable maturity and look at this issue matter of factly. The ordinance, the by-laws, and even the corporate website clearly show that '''MTR still refers to the Mass Transit Railway'''. This is a fact all of you fail to show otherwise. Even if the general public refers to it popularly as MTR as claimed, it violates the naming convertion's guidelines on proper nouns, the same way SARS was recently moved to ] for the exact same reason even thou most people would say SARS too. Secondly, HSBC, BAA, BBC and CNN are all not relevant here, simply because of them are '''legal names of 'corporations'''. The same thing for ], ], and so on, none of which are abbreviations since a rebranding exercise. Once again I ask: is this page about ], or on the ] system?--] 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is BBC no longer called The British Broadcasting Corporation? Is CNN already the official whole name of the company (while its says "'' © 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ''")? — ]] 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am sure I said they are '''legal names of corporations'''. So what if the BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation, and CNN = Cable News Network? Does that mean MTR no longer = Mass Transit Railway?--] 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sounds a bit like double standard to me. BBC, CNN and DBS Bank, or The British Broadcasting Corporation, Cable News Network and Development Bank of Singapore, which are the legal names? — ]] 20:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Double standards? Actually, DBS does '''not''' stand for the Development Bank of Singapore, so I am wondering where your "double standards" stems from as well. If you wish to move the BBC and CNN, by all means. I was clearly questioning your comparison of MTR as a subway system with that of the names of corporations, because you also appear to have difficulties diffrentiating between the MTR and MTR Corporation. The later should not be moved because it is its corporatised name, but the former is still an abbreviation.--] 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I think you've just contradicted yourself, Huaiwei. If CNN's legal name is "Cable News Network", then why don't we move that then? ] 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Is anyone stopping you from moving it? Where is the contradiction you claim exists?--] 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Perhaps there's some logic to why BBC is at ] and CNN is at ]. But maybe everyone's just plain wrong. ] 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], Use the most specific terminology available is the most apporiate method to express this group, and also that If this is objectionable often a more general name is more neutral or more accurate. Like in the promotion posters the term '''MTR''' is used instead of '''Mass Transit Railway''' and the trem '''MTR''' is more general than '''Mass Transit Railway'''. Additionally, according to ], is to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. the trem '''MTR''' is only used in Hong Kong, unlike the term '''Mass Transit Railway''', it is ambagious in other cities. --] ⇔ ] 19:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mass Transit Railway is quite obviously much more specific than MTR, the later of which could mean ]. That you actually need a disambiguation page already tells you it is actually objectionable '''not''' to use the specific name, and to use the general name hence becomes less nuetral and more inaccurate. This convention you cite supports the page move, in actual fact. Next, the naming conventions to avoid abbreviations apparantly overules that for common names, as the example of SARS above shows. Your claim that "MTR" is only used in HK is not only disputed by ], a simply google search would have also demonstrated the inaccuracy of that claim. No other article presently shares ]. Even if so, a disambiguation page would then solve the problem very easily the same way it works for this current article title.--] 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I prefer it to be MTR, or should it be ]? The official website uses MTR not Mass Transit Railway. Once again, this is all personal views and I'm neutral. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| When is the end of this "discussion"? Cut off the soliloquy. -- ] 13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Just over a day, at 18:06, 16 December 2005 :) A friendly local admin will come around and clean up the mess... can't be me though :P ] 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Article "Modernisation" == | == Article "Modernisation" == | ||
Revision as of 03:43, 22 December 2005
| File:MTR-Corporation-logo.png | Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss the article MTR and MTR Corporation Limited. Past discussions can be found within this archive. Enjoy! =) |
 | MTR received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:FAOL
Images
- image* *image* image* *image*...
This page is chock-full with images! Needa some urgent clean-ups. Let's give a big hand to Mailer diablo, who have been working hard on this insurmountably annoying drudgery! *clap* :-D
I have taken some photos recently, and I hope they would be useful. :)
Btw, could the images be much smaller in size? Though I'm not suffering from megalophobia, i.e. fear of large things, my heart would strike like mad if my eyes get contact with these goliath-sized pictures! ;P -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- LOL! =D Most are useful, especially those ones on individual stations which can be used in individual station articles. Anyway, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)'s next on my worklist! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think some of the images placed in this article are misplaced. For example:
- Image: MTROlympicStation.jpg should be placed in the section West Rail Interface Works, since it is the only section in the article that talks about the station.
- Image: MTR Hong Kong station Diamond Hill.jpg should not be placed in this article as it does not say anything about the station. ( Image: MTR Hong Kong station Kwun Tong.JPG should be all we need for a photo of a station on the Kwun Tong Line.)
- Image:MTR Hong Kong station Central.jpg should not be placed in the Tsuen Wan Line section since the section doesn't say anything about it. (I know the Central Station is part of the Tsuen Wan Line, but Image: MTPrinceEdwardStationPlatfo.jpg is more suitable for that section, because the station name "Prince Edward" appears a few times in it.
- Image:MTR Hong Kong station Tiu Keng Leng.JPG should be placed in Tseung Kwan O Line, since it is part of the Line.
- Why is Image:MTR North Point station (1).jpg not being shown? It is placed in a perfect location, and if you say the caption is too long, well, I have shortened it.
- Image: HK MTR ChaiWan Waiting 2003Jan17.JPG should not be placed in West Rail Interface Works because it is not about Island Line. But since it shows the look of an M- , place it in MTR rolling stock should be better.
- Image: Ifc hong kong station.jpg should be either removed or moved to Airport Express and Tung Chung Line instead, since it is not related to the section. (Well, the section does talk about toliet facilities in the Airport Express, but in any case, placing a photo of the facilities is better than a photo of the station entrance, isn't it?)
.jpg){kind=link}
I also think these two images should be added to the article: Image:Mtr.gif and Image:WIL-SIL-Proposal-4.png.
Opinions are welcome. Riddle | Talk 05:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I must say that the rearrangement is a mess. Serious disruption is found upon textual arrangement. I don't like the changes at all. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've rearranged some of the images yet again with trial and error. To abate monotony, some have been staggered. Feel free to improve further. Mission9801 09:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Advertisement
Seems it's one of the main sources of MTRC's income...could anyone write something about it? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quarry Bay Relief Works
The platform number 3 is actually a new platform, built as part of the project to extend the Kwun Tong line from Quarry Bay to North Point. — Instantnood 15:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Better remove it or relocate it...too many pictures in this article. The lengthy caption has dirupted the arrangement of the text. Btw, the same pic has already been added to the Island Line page...:D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fare of the Airport Express
The Airport Express, on top of a different fare system, has its own gates. — Instantnood 15:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect
What there's a redirect page for Nam Cheong, which is absent in the case of Kowloong Tong? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- PS There is a caption: Admiralty station in Central, on Hong Kong Island. Is that true? Or should it be Central District? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Nam Cheong is an integrated station. Passengers are only required to pass through the gates once (instead of twice as at Kowloon Tong or Mei Foo). Admiralty is actually part of Central. I'm not sure if people actually used the name Admiralty or 金鐘 to call the area, then full of barracks, before the station was built. Queensway (金鐘道) used to be part of Queen's Road East. :-) — Instantnood 16:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
West Island Line and South Island Line
- " The first proposal was submitted by MTR Corporation Limited on May 2002, but had some major drawbacks. After permission was given, a feasibility study was then conducted in mid-2003 to determine the cost-effectiveness of the lines, the external benefits and impact on other modes of transport. The company derived a modified proposal in November 2003 to address the earlier drawbacks, and proposed three alignment options for the South Island Line.
- " A third revised scheme was handed in end-March 2004, which included an extension plan on the Island Line. The plan was turned down by the government to favour the construction of highways. MTR gave a fourth try in February 2004, in which the legislative counsellors support the building of West Island Line. "
Is the above removed paragraphs going to be relocated to West Island Line and South Island Line? :-D — Instantnood 17:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Very likely. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Standards
I have noticed that a lot of the station articles have been changed recently so their opening paragraphs read different from each article. I propose that we create a standard as follows: Station name (Chinese character, Chinese pronunciation) is a ] on the ] ] located in ]. It is located between ] and ] on the {{MTR Line Name}}. The station's ] is '''colour'''. Any objections? - PZFUN 02:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Very considerate. :-D --Jerry Crimson Mann 04:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
TLAs for lines and stations
The MTR has three-letter abbreviations for all its stations and lines. Should these be added to the articles? — Instantnood 11:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? :D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right-aligning logo
I tried right-aligning the logo in order to make the intro paragraph less narrow (it's all of about ten words per line, five with my Firefox sidebar open) and to make the flow of text less jolting (in particular, the article's subject should be the very first thing in the article proper), but simply got reverted. Any reasons for having it the way it currently is? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 30 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)
- Because it looks perfectly fine on my computer, and there's no reason to have the logo be so large, and I actually like it on the left. Páll 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
- Same here. It works perfectly on my computer. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Security measures of the MTR
Shall we add a section on the security measures taken by the MTR Corporation, such as CCTVs, staff at concourses and platforms, police stands, the Rail District (previously MTR District) of the Hong Kong Police Force, armed police officers on s and in stations, etc.? (in response to the bomb in the London Tube :-D ) — Instantnood 17:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- So do you have any information? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Shocking fact
Today I got a leaflet from an MTR kiosk, and I found that the MTRC do not consider the Airport Express as part of the MTR system; they're totally separate. So should we separate the AE from this article or what? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Which leaflet did you pick up? I don't think Airport Express should be turned into a separate article, and by the end of the year this line would pick up citizens to the new Expo center too. Despite the different ticket system, I really don't think this should be separated. --Xavier Fung 07:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Art in MTR
I'v got some information about the "art in mtr" campaign, and I shall upload them afterward. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Why it is 53 stations?
When I try to correct 53 station to 52 station. Someone (may be admin) change back it.
from the websutes MTRC
"We are currently operating a railway network of 90.9 kilometres route with 52 stations. With a daily patronage of over 2.4 million passengers, our system is one of the most ntensively utilized systems in the world." http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/railway/railway_details.html#quality
Please edit it with the correct datas.
--Mmlcs36 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- The 53rd station is AsiaWorld-Expo, opening late 2005. --Xavier Fung 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Page is now 40K+, ideas to split something up?
I have found out that the page has grown over 40K. I read the page Misplaced Pages:Article_size and they suggest of keeping it below 32K to enhance readability. I think the part for History is already too lengthy so I suggest spilting the detail history part into a new article. A brief summary could be a rewrite of the overview section. I get an idea to briefly present the history by means of a table or a list in chronological order.
Any ideas from all of you? --Xavier Fung 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the History part can be restructured. It is currently not only history, but also introduction to most of the lines. I think the detailed history of the currently existing lines can be incoporated into the articles of respective lines, with just a very brief introduction (summary) listed on the main article. -- Spring Dennis 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Future MTR System Map image?
As interesting as the image is, it's missing some information already in the article, namely the missing West and South Island lines, and the Tung Chung Line extension to Fortress kill will have new stations, namely Tamar Station and HKCEC Station. Victoria Park Station will depend on which alignment they decide to use. Jonathan Stanley 15:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks to the anonymous person whom updated the map... :D Though on another note, if Fortress Hill a dual line interchange as show, or should it be a triple interchange (Tung Chung Line)? I've looked at the plans from the MTR and it actually doesn't seem clear... Jonathan Stanley 15:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
MTR Route Maps
What do you guys think about my MTR Route Maps? (Especially on the future MTR map!) I want to see some feedback from users so that I can be able to add/subtract things from the maps so it will be more presentable and user-friendly. ng_iman@USA 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- What a good drawing!
- I think the colors of some lines are different from the official documents from MTR. The South Island Line (W) is grassy green, and the (E) section is reddish purple.
- The Kwun Tong line section from Whampoa across the harbour is just a proposal for the fifth rail crossing and it is not yet planned. So I would say remove this section to avoid ambiguity.
- One minor issue is on the Tseung Kwan O Line. The line is continuous through Tsueng Kwan O station to its two legs, so it is nicer to show its continuity by altering the lines.
- I have also drafted one for my own drawing pleasure \:> , but I have added the portions of KCR lines to it. My drawing.
- --Xavier Fung 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Requested move
The requested move was unsuccessful. The discussion can be found here. I note that I voted in this discussion, but consensus was definitely to keep the article at the current location, with only one supporting vote. enochlau (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Article "Modernisation"
Just like the M-Train, I think it's time for the article to receive a bit of refurbishment. Basically at this time, there are two immediate issues I can think of :
- Revised reference format, i.e. new 'Notes' section. I'm referring to In-line citations. That'd be great.
- Revised prose for smaller and newer sections.
What do you guys think? :)
- Mailer Diablo 05:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- It sounds great to me, at the same time, implying lotsa drudgery... :-/ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
MTR station templates
Please see the {{MTR station}}, {{MTR station 2 lines}} for the proposal MTR station infobox, and share about the comments regrading to the infobox in Template talk:MTR station. Also see Quarry Bay (MTR) and Tai Koo (MTR) for the sample effects. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 1~6:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the infobox and the station box should be implemented. We shouldn't make the whole page out of a template. The article should have a normal flow. Cos some may have more information and they can't add due to a template. Like just the station infobox and the station box. :P --Terence Ong 18:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Great ideas, but will it be difficult to maintain the exact data for some field, like the number of esculators? --Xavier Fung 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, but needs lots of research though. --Terence Ong 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Number of escalators? Hmmm... call me crazy but that seems like an odd thing to include in an infobox. enochlau (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, but needs lots of research though. --Terence Ong 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Great ideas, but will it be difficult to maintain the exact data for some field, like the number of esculators? --Xavier Fung 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)