Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Singapore High‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Light Rail Transit (Singapore) was the Singapore Collaboration of the Fortnight between December 29, 2005 and January 4, 2006, part of a collaboration effort between Singapore Wikipedians.

Improvements to page

We really need a real major cleanup and improve this page. There should be locators like at MRT stations and photos for every station. A map is also needed and a lot of information is needed here. We need lots of work here. :P

We have to do something about this article and it needs urgent cleanup. The least we can do is do some summary to the page first. This article is of poor standards. This is not good at all. We need to do a major cleanup, for it to gain better status. Photos are very urgent here. Please take a look and comment whether this article should be the COTW.

The Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article is a long page, whereas this one is of low standards and needs a cleanup. This article is a mess. if I can put it. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 08:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links to sub-pages

I notice some sub-pages, like those of the Depots, are rather short. I suggest that we either improve on these sub-pages, or incorporate them into this page. Also, Punggol LRT Line seems rather outdated. --fauzi 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need lots of research to this article. We should improve the sub-pages and summarise the information. Try to take ideas from our MRT article. Also when updating, you may also like to edit it here. --Terence Ong ^Talk 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

Our inaugural COTF has been very successful and there'a very big difference from what it was before to what it is now. See difference [1]. However, there are still many tasks to improve this article. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMK, Orchard, Marina South, Tampines, Toa Payoh Lines.????

User:Ragnaroknike insisted that the text I reverted is verifiable. He took it from a book, Resource Atlas for Social Studies which he purposely scan it and create an uploaded on Wikipedia. The image can be found here. It is unacceptable to scan pictures from a book which is definitely a copyvio.

This text has been reverted several times by three users: NSLE, Kenneth88 and myself.

LTA had once proposed building LRT lines at Orchard Road and Marina South. Orbital LRT lines at Bedok and Tampines linking Serangoon - Bishan - Buona Vista and Houngang - Ang Mo Kio - Toa Payoh are under study.

I never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this. This was a specteculation by the book and the future orbital LRT Lines are unverifiable as LTA has never mentioned it. This is definitely crystall-ballism which is not allowed. We are an encyclopedia not some "what will happen in the future" website. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been tracking statements by the LTA, or by the URA? Plans to build a rail line along Orchard Road and Marina South are for real (the Orchard Rd plan was pretty recent, in fact, while the Marina South one was at least a decade old), and the orbital line actually refers to the current circle line under construction, albeit it is refering to a much earlier plan which envisaged a network of LRT lines instead of the current plan employing a combination of both. There are indeed LRT lines planned for the East as well as Northeast regions. A book as old as "The Next Lap" already details these early plans.--Huaiwei 11:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, the comment was made in April. Please note the time difference its almost five months since you made this comment, check dates for goodness sake. The Circle Line (Marina South) was always tagged as a MRT line, not a LRT line. But the problem is there is no sources for this. Show me the sources for the Orchard one then? Proof it? No source, no proof. Don't use your wild imagination, does the papers ever carry such information. The answer is no. Ok, then do source it then, if you have the time to do so. Aren't the lines part of the MRT? --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down please :D. Huaiwei was just asking how confident you were about "never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this", and whether you would be familiar with earlier plans, say 10 years ago. I do remember LRT proposals for Dover (NUS students would remember this) and Marina South. This again serves as reminder of how old I am, :P --Vsion 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah I even have a newspaper cutting of the proposed LRT system in Buona Vista. Anyway, the system isnt entirely thrown out of the window...there are still plans for a PMS system with links to NUS if the one-north concept plan is to be implimented in full [2] (click on transport map).--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should five months make a difference here, when plans for those rail lines in question date several years back, sometimes even several decades? Pick up "The Next Lap", a book published in 1991 (which I was compelled to buy as a student by my school), which shows a Concept Plan with LRT lines snaking through the Eastern areas of Hougang, Aljunied, Marine Parade, Tampines, Pasir Ris. Sengkang, Punggol, and Seletar. The routings mirror part of the current Circle Line, as well as the planned Northshore Line. Since decades ago, there has been much talk on a "downtown LRT system", linking up the New Downtown with the rest of the city, and various routing proposals could be seen many decades earlier. Refer to past Singapore Master Plans and Concept Plans for this. The current Concept Plan of 2001 [3] clearly shows plans to build an MRT/LRT line along Orchard Road, as well as along the Scotts Road/Paterson Road corridor. It also clearly shows the entire range of proposed LRT lines in all the areas listed in the original book above. Just because plans were changed to accomodate a new Circle line dosent mean the non-existance of previous plans which include LRT lines, so quit assuming "wild imaginations" are at play here. Your ignorance is no excuse to berate others who happen to "know better".--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? Show the cutting then, scan it, I want proof. Oh, trying to find fault with me, is it? Then go and cite it, why discuss it? Arguing will not benefit at all, then you go and do it since you are the smart one. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which "cutting" are you referring to, my friend?--Huaiwei 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper cutting you were talking about. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I talked about that cutting I was referring to the Buona Vista system, which has nothing to do with whatever User:Ragnaroknike tried to add. Furthermore, I was conversing with Vision with regards to that cutting, and not with you. I suppose you consider it gracious to demand for a cutting you do not deserve, but no, I am not going to scan a copyrighted article just to put a check on your run-away gap.--Huaiwei 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a private conversation, go and talk among yourselves on email and on Windows Live. Do consider that this is a wiki, anyone can edit, so don't think it is between you and Vsion. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for stations

I think we need more images for the stations, even if they are not opened, such as Soo Teck LRT Station. -User:Ragnaroknike

Please don't expect me to go to a remote place to take some stations pics. I don't live in the North-East, so I can't do it. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership and cost

Are there any figures for LRT ridership and the operator's cost per passenger compared to buses? LTA's decision would seem to indicate that the LRTs are a failure from this point of view. Jpatokal 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Failure" seems too strong a word to be applied to all three LRT systems. At least in Sengkang, it seems to be doing well. The problem is the high capital costs invovled in introducing it to existing towns were there has never been a provision made for LRT systems, and the resulting backlash it can create should the public complain that it does not offer them doorstep service the way buses do (which LRTs in their current configurations can never do).--Huaiwei 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to surf the internet for what our "LRT" means exactly. It seems the only 2 unabbreviated sources i could find states "Light Rail Transit" not "Light Rapid Transit". SMRT Trains LTA Public Transport Overview Anyone else can confirm this? If yes I'd like to move the article (including all related ones) to it's correct name. - oahiyeel ^talk 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the official name is Light Rail Transit. The Ministry of Transport website states it as Light Rail Transit, so does a number of Singapore-government related websites, as does the initial company SLRT Pte Ltd (Singapore Light Rail Transit) set up to run the first LRT system in Singapore. I'm renaming it to Light Rail Transit (Singapore) now. - oahiyeel ^talk 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to place a partial list of sources here for reasons why I have moved the LRT specific pages to Light Rail Transit:

- oahiyeel ^talk 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has actually worked in the public sector will know which sources are typically far more realiable. Websites, press releases, and even speeches are not as reliable as physical publications, because while the later typically goes through far more checks and counter checks by people in the know (since they are typical self-publications), people pay far less attention to online publications. Speeches, while also checked time and again, may not always go through the people in the know on technical details...with an almost hit-or-miss pattern. In this case, I would consider the Land Transport Masterplan [4] published by the Land Transport Authority in 2008 as the most realiable. And to demonstrate just how unrealiably inconsistent online sources can be, here is a list from government sources which write "Light Rapid Transit":

And may I also note that the NLB's infopedia article on the LRT says it means "Light Rapid Transit" [5].--Huaiwei (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reminders has been recorded in User_talk:Oahiyeel#Light_Rapid_Transit to address the issue at hand, with no response thus far. If there are no objections in the next seven days, the rename exercise will be reverted as per reasons stated above.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been away for examinations, due to end next week. I have a few points to make:

My mistake. Insufficient investigations have been put in prior to the renaming, thus I had been bold and started the renaming. I must apologize for it.
As proven by the posts above, the sources simply contradicts each other; i.e. even sources from the Singapore Government agencies are inconsistent with the naming. As such even publications from them do not 100% indicate the correct names.
As in the case from the masterplan, it is only briefly mentioned once, and as such is also insufficient to conclude its actual name.
In the case from Infopedia, you may wish to note in the reference section: "Green light for Light Rail system (1994, December 4). The Straits Times, p. 1." and "SMRT. (n.d.). About us: Introduction to SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd."
The name "Light Rail Transit" may not be correct, but it does not imply that "Light Rapid Transit" is correct either.
As such I would like to put forth the strongest argument for the name "Light Rail Transit". When the MRT network was launched, (then) "Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Pte Ltd" was formed. Similarly when the first LRT, BPLRT was completed, (then) "Singapore Light Rail Transit Pte Ltd" (now SMRT Light Rail) was formed. This is the strongest indication yet of the correct name of the system. The company name is registered and cannot be disputed.
Also, the LRT system in Singapore is not a rapid system by any means; it is actually an automated people mover. This is a weak argument, since there are non-rapid systems in the world that has "rapid" in it's name, but I thought is worth mentioning.
Apart from only 2 of us discussing the "correct" name for this article, I'd like to seek opinions from other editors who are usually actively involved in editing Singapore rail related articles.
If at the end of the discussions, no consensus can be reached, I'd recommend keeping the current title to minimize disruption to the readers and users of Wikipedia.

- oahiyeel ^talk 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies.

There is no real issue with being bold per-se, but it can become an issue when you are talking about a drastic change of this magnitute. Even if no one answers your queries in this talkpage (which is quite understandable because it is tucked in a secluded low-traffic area), I would think it best to post an inquiry in the Sg noticeboard for example.
You appear not to understand what I have writtern above. I have stated that physical publications, eg books and annual reports, are far more reliable sources compared to corporate websites, for instance. Speeches would fall somewhere in between, but much closer to the reliability of physical publications. I state this based on experience in actually working in the civil service and handling publication work, unless you have experience to show an opposing view. Otherwise, do not assume they are of equal reliability. I believe the long list of examples above clearly demonstrate this unrealiability, be it corporate websites, press releases, or even speeches.
Kindly note where this term appeared in the actual publication. It was in the Abbreviations section, which appeared prominently just after the minister's forward and the chairman's message. An entry of this level of prominence cannot be dismissed, even if it appears only once.
You may also note that NLB has chosen to ignore both mistakes when choosing to name its article as such.
Unless there is evidence to show that the LTA has made a mistake in its own recent publication, I would not consider this a valid point for consideration.
The names of corporatations tasked to operate the lines have absolutely no bearing on how the government authority chooses to call its rail system. If this was so, we would be renaming the system each time the companies change their names, which clearly did not occur. This can hardly be considered a strong point, when both SMRT[6] and SBS Transit[7] has refered to the LRT system as "light rapid transit", in particular the former which goes: "SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd was set up in 1997 and operates Singapore's first fully automated light rapid transit (LRT) system - the Bukit Panjang LRT system." Care to see the distinct difference now?
Can you define for us what a "light rapid" system is, and how it is distinguished from a "light rail" system?
I would strongly recommend that all names be restored to their original names immediately, before waiting for community input, for this should have been done properly in the first place. Why should a restoration be discouraged to avoid a "disruption" to readers, when the same user has found it apt to do similarly "disruptive" edits without conducting proper research himself? And why should this current version be kept should there be no concensus, when this version fails to meet any guideline in keeping its current form, and where there is an impasse situation with regards to common usage, it is still usage by official sources which will take precedence, which is the Land Transport Masterplan [8] published by the Land Transport Authority in 2008?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if no input is recorded in the next seven days, the above changes will be reverted.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the arguments you present, they also suffer from the reliability issue that you mentioned earlier; eg. point 4,6. Point 4 is a clear case of biased interpretation. What makes those to be judge as mistakes? Wouldn't a counter argument such as NLB made the mistake hold as little water as this argument? Especially since internet publications suffer from reliability issues. Point 5: It is for you to prove that LTA publications is reliable, not the other way round for people to prove otherwise; in this case, the different name used on different publications from LTA slants it away from being a good reliable source for this particular naming issue. (It remains reliable and valid for all other contents such as future plans etc.). Point 7: They are all over the web. You can research and read up on them if you are interested to do so. Point 8: Please assume good faith. This user had not found it apt to do disruptive edits; but made changes to reflect the correct name (in previous context). Also if you wish to make the massive reverts (quote:)"before waiting for community input" go ahead. You may wish to look at the comment I left on your talkpage. I've said all there is to this issue - you won't find me further involved in this discussion, since I expect no compromising/satisfactory outcome to this. - oahiyeel ^talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I walked into the National Library a few days ago, picked up a book called "The Journey - Singapore's Land Transport Story" published by the Land Transport Authority in 2005, ISBN 981248101X [9], flipped to the Acronyms page, and found that the entry "LRT" is paired by the entry "Light Rapid Transit". I flipped to the index, looked up "LRT", and found that all references to it correspond to "Light Rapid Transit". With two major and recent publications by the Land Transport Authority consistently using the phrase "Light Rapid Transit", I do not think it neccesary to debate on "biased interpretations" and "reliability issues", seemingly the only primary arguments Oahiyeel could use to keep this preferred version. I will give him 20 more minutes to return with a better response to support an overturning of WP:V, failing which the reversion will take effect, especially considering he has indicated his unwillingness to discuss this matter further despite being given an additional week to return with a better response[10].--Huaiwei (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive of discussions

As oahiyeel has recently attempted to censor all past comments on this issue in his talkpages by labelling it an "eyesore"[11], I provide a link here for ease of reference[12]. Refer specifically to the section headlined "Light Rapid Transit"--Huaiwei (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, also, a rather interesting comment in the edit history as recorded here[13].--Huaiwei (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's an interesting comment, but it states the truth. - oahiyeel ^talk 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including the names

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Rail or Rapid is "more" correct, but it's obvious that both terms are consistently used even by very authoritative sources (LTA, MOF, URA, etc), so the article body should definitely mention the other — and now it does. Jpatokal (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the second time this year. Not going to see agreement on this issue anytime soon, looks like.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A second RM for the article to be reverted back to Light Rapid Transit (Singapore) has been formally requested due to limited participation in the previous discussion. To refresh on the salient points supporting the restoration of the title:

In terms of common usage, it has been found that both Light Rapid Transit or Light Rail Transit do not command a decisive lead over the other. Oahiyeel primary rationale for the first move (which received very little feedback from others) was based solely on the misrepresented believe that various government agencies and operators use "Light Rail Transit". What he failed to state, however, was that practically the same agencies also use the term "Light Rapid Transit" with approximately equal frequency. Refer to the previous RM for a list of examples Talk:Light_Rail_Transit_(Singapore)#Correct name?.
Oahiyeel argued that one of the operators, SLRT, is known as "Singapore Light Rail Transit" in full. I acknowledge this is correct, for that is the company name. However, the same company refers to the LRT system as "Light Rapid Transit" (quote: "SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd was set up in 1997 and operates Singapore's first fully automated light rapid transit (LRT) system - the Bukit Panjang LRT system." [14]). The other operator, SBSTransit, refers to the system as "Light Rapid Transit" [15]. Thus, the only usage of the phrase "Light Rail Transit" is in the name of one of the operators SLRT Pte Ltd, and not the rail system itself.
In naming disputes where two names are equally well used, the dispute resolution mechanism then asks for the official name as the decision maker. The Land Transport Authority of Singapore, the overall master planner of Singapore's land transport system, formally refers to the system as the "Light Rapid Transit" consistently in all of its major publications. These include the book called The Journey - Singapore's Land Transport Story" published by the Land Transport Authority in 2005, ISBN 981248101X [16] and its most recent publication, the Land Transport Masterplan [17] published in 2008. These publications are far more authoritative then usage in websites or speeches that Oahiyeel claims to be of equal (or even higher) authority.

With these, I therefore table the move request. Also note that this move includes all references to the phrase in the entire website, including categories and templates. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the same website SMRT refers to it as the Light Rail Transit. "Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) is the first Light Rail Transit (LRT) system to be built in Singapore." [18].
On the SBSTransit website has also refered to it as the Light Rail Transit. "SBS Transit also runs the MRT North East Line which is the world's first driverless heavy metro system with 15 stations in operation as well as the Light Rail Transit system in Sengkang and Punggol new towns." [19].
The Ministry of Transport also refers to the system as Light Rail Transit. [20]
Also, the LTA does not consistently to the system as Light Rapid Transit. Many examples listed in the previous discussion leads to LTA describing the system as Light Rail Transit. Also, the LTA had a white paper titled "A world class land transport system" tabled to the PARLIAMENT of Singapore linked here: [21] The white paper clearly refers to the system as Light Rail Transit. The white paper presented to the parliament must be considered as more authoritative than those publications that User:Huaiwei has mentioned.

With these, I oppose the move. - oahiyeel ^talk 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oahiyeel's actions of selective referencing does not move the discussion further, for I have stated clearly that in terms of common usage, both terms are used by the same organisations, as I can easily do here: SMRT uses the term "Light Rapid Transit" here [22], SBS Transit uses "Light Rapid Transit" here [23]. The Ministry of Transport uses "Light Rapid Transit" here [24]. This clearly follows my previous statement that the "same agencies" uses both terms "with approximately equal frequency". As opposed to Oahiyeel suggestion, both of LTA's publications I have cited do not use the term "Light Rail Transit", as alluding to my statement that LTA has been consistent in its major publications. While I must admit the LTA white paper of 1996 was an exception I did not come across earlier, I have to point out that the Land Transport Masterplan of 2008 was similarly tabled in parliament, and is clearly not any less authoritative if we are to use the same argument. Clearly, Oahiyeel arguments to move this article away from "Light Rapid Transit", where the article has existed from the time it was started on 28 March 2005 until Oahiyeel's move on 14 April 2008, was not any stronger, if not worse, then the arguments to keep it where it was.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My replies were to refute your points of 1)"Thus, the only usage of the phrase "Light Rail Transit" is in the name of one of the operators SLRT Pte Ltd, and not the rail system itself." which is obviously wrong, and 2)"..."Light Rapid Transit" consistently in all of its major publications." & "These publications are far more authoritative ..." where I have provided an equally authoritative source in the white paper & proven that LTA has not been as consistent as Huaiwei insists it is. And by the way, I have not seen it being suggested that the Land Transport Masterplan of 2008 has been tabled in the parliament. Could you point me a source for that? Please don't use "common sense" or some "implied-related" sort of reasoning.
Just to add on, a simple google search for Singapore Light Rail Transit yields a total of about 266,000 results [25] compared to 73,500 [26] for Singapore Light Rapid Transit. Similarly, a search with the terms Light Rail Transit and Light Rapid Transit joined together as a phrase i.e. "Light Rail Transit" and "Light Rapid Transit" yields 22,800 "Light+Rail+Transit"&btnG=Search&meta= & 7,020 "Light+Rapid+Transit"&btnG=Search&meta= respectively. Kind of indicative of which is the more common name.
Oh by the way, everytime point A is presented & refuted with point B, point A is subsequently used to counter point B again. Such circular arguments leads no where really. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1) cannot be proven wrong, unless SMRT consistently uses the term "Light Rail Transit" in all references to the LRT line it operates. Point 2) remains valid in term of the publications I have cited (I was careful not to suggest that LTA uses only one phrase throughout the organisation, including its website), with the White Paper as the sole exception which I subsequently acknowledged has escaped my scrutiny. I am not sure if you have been following parliamentary proceedings or the news in recent years, but this is just one early example of the year-long land transport review being mentioned in parliament [27], before the Masterplan itself was published in March 2008, thereby rendering the 1996 white paper obsolete. You know very well that a google search is next to useless in this case, especially when the phrase "Light rail transit" is far more prevalent when describing similar systems around the world, but whether all those references refers to the actual name of the system in Singapore is anyone's guess. Finally, thank you for acknowledging that common usage cannot be used as a criteria in this debate, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Ultimately, the debate will centre on which name is the official name as recognised by the LTA, and I do think the answer to this is obvious.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circular argument. Point 1 has been proven wrong. "Thus, the only usage of the phrase "Light Rail Transit" is in the name of one of the operators SLRT Pte Ltd, and not the rail system itself." Clearly "the only usage ... in is the name of the operator" is wrong as I have pointed out with the examples above. Similarly "not the rail system itself" is also wrong as the examples above uses Light Rail Transit to describe the system itself (SMRT/SBSTransit/LTA/MOT). Point 2: With the example of the white paper, it no longer remains valid. The link you have provided does not include at any point where the "Land Transport Masterplan of 2008 was similarly tabled in parliament" as you mentioned above. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are merely trying to nitpick over a particular phrasing of my comment, the result of which has little relevance anyway, I will not be drawn further into this debate. I standby my comment that the SMRT Limited, in the source that I cited, used "the phrase "Light Rail Transit" in the name of one of the operators SLRT Pte Ltd, and not the rail system itself". This has no reference to how other companies or organisations use the same term. Point 2 remains largely valid with just one major exception, an exception which is 11 years old and already rendered obsolete by a 2008 publication which uses the term "Light Rapid Transit". You appear to have great difficulties accepting this fact. The link I provided refers to an instance of the transport review being mentioned in parliament. If you are attempting to insinuate that the 1997 White paper remains valid and takes precedence over the 2008 Public Transport Masterplan, I would love to see some evidence to support this notion.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have failed & refused to acknowledge the fact that your points have been proven wrong. 2) You have not proven that the 2008 Public Transport Masterplan was tabled in the parliament, which you have claimed so. - oahiyeel ^talk 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) In areas where I was proven wrong, I have acknowledged it, for example, my failure with regards to the LTA's white paper. In other areas where you insist on misrepresenting what I was saying, I see it purely as a uncivil means of disregarding another's arguments, including valid ones. 2) I have indicated clearly that the 2008 Public Transport Masterplan has received mention in parliamentary debates. The 1997 document was presented in full in parliament for being an original which needs official ratification. The 2008 document is an official update of the 1997 document, the updates of which were reported in parliament, and it renders the 1997 document obsolete. Your continued obsession with the word "tabled", while sidestepping the fact that the 1997 White Paper is already obsolete, is yet another clear indication that you are only interested in discrediting the editor, and not the content being discussed.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that I have proven that term "Light Rail Transit" have been used to describe the system in question, but not just "in the name of an operator" as you have put it. It is you who have refused to accept that fact and you who have not proven that the 2008 Masterplan was one that was officially tabled in the parliament, instead of just another publication released to the public by LTA. I have not discredited you, it is you who have to prove your points, which have not been sufficiently proven. It is now you who are discrediting me calling me uncivil and claiming that I am discrediting you when all I have done is to ask for evidence from you to substantiate your points. - oahiyeel ^talk 09:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you may learn how to read comments in context, my statement was relevant to your claim that SLRT calls the system the "Light Rail Transit", which has been proven untrue by that quotation from no where but the SLRT website itself. You made absolutely no effort to acknowledge the error you made. I have absolutely no need to "prove" that the 2008 Masterplan was tabled in parliament or not, because the premise of your argument is that you oddly believe that the LTA White Paper of 1997 is "more official", and thus "more authoritative", just because it was "tabled in parliament". This is despite the fact that I have shown that the new 2008 Masterplan was mentioned in parliament and the transport minister had to update parliament on its progress, and that the LTA has said repeatedly, including in parliament, that the 2008 Masterplan is an update of the 1997 White paper, which thus means it is just as official, just as authoritative, and more updated, than the later. Again, you simply ignored this fact. So if you think you have the moral high ground to accuse another of "refusing to accept facts", I am afraid you have to take your own advise and check out the mirror too.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After putting on my thinking cap, I'll offer a novel solution: you're both wrong. You're attempting to come up with a capitalized proper noun for "the light rapid transit network in Singapore", but as it's run by two separate operators, such a proper name doesn't exist and government publications use a mismatch of terms when referring to the LRTs. The correct name would thus be "Light rail transit in Singapore", where light rail transit is not a proper noun, but a generic term. Or, perhaps better yet, "LRT in Singapore". Jpatokal (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this argument if it is the last resort (or rather, if no-one refutes it), with a preference to "LRT in Singapore" :) - oahiyeel ^talk 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a singular name for all LRT networks in Singapore is non-existent surely needs some backup facts to support it, without which the above suggestion, while creative, cannot be taken seriously.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty bloody obvious that there is no "singular" (sic) name for all LRT networks in Singapore, because both of you have assembled a mighty army of references for two different options. But I'll highlight one of your references, Huaiwei: "SMRT Light Rail Pte Ltd was set up in 1997 and operates Singapore's first fully automated light rapid transit (LRT) system - the Bukit Panjang LRT system."[28] (emphasis yours). Note how "light rapid transit (LRT)" in this sentence is not a proper noun: SMRT is saying that the BPLRT is Singapore's first "light rapid transit system" ("big apple"), not that the BPLRT is the first line in "The Singapore Light Rapid Transit System" ("Big Apple"). Jpatokal (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jpatokal, if you are 100% serious about supporting your proposed theory, I would like you to show quite matter of factly that the phrase "Light Rapid Transit" or "Light Rapid Transit" has not been treated as proper nouns in a majority of publications. It is quite obvious that one example will not be conclusive.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A majority of publications?" Google gets me 2.2m hits for "light rail transit singapore", so that might take a while.

But for shits and giggles, I took at look at the first five links each posted by both you and Oahiyeel, and there is a striking pattern: the Garmin almost never refers to The "Light {Rail,Rapid} Transit System" in singular. Instead, they talk about systems (plural), or a specific LRT system.

There are two Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems [29]

Today, we have two LRT systems up and running [30]

The Punggol Light Rail Transit (LRT) [31]

It's Singapore's first feeder light rapid transit, or LRT system. [32]

Jpatokal (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the statement "There are two Toms in my class" strip the word "Tom" its status as a proper noun? Even if you are merely trying to entertain, it would be most appreciated that some logic be woven into it for it to be even funny.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute strawman. Of course "Light Rail Transit" can be used as a proper noun when referring to a type of train system in Singapore ("The BPLRT is a Light Rail Transit system"). What I'm saying is that "Light Rail Transit" should not be, cannot be, and is not used to refer to the system as a whole, like the article currently attempts to do: "The Light Rail Transit (LRT) ... is the light rail component of Singapore's rail network."

To use your awkward Tom analogy here, we've got Tom Jones and Tom Sawyer, and you want to call the article about both of them "Tom", and start it with "The Tom is the Tom component of my class". Logical? Jpatokal (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As expected. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are sarcastic comments relevant to the discussion?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there won't be any resolution to this naming anytime soon. I ran newspaper sources back to as far as 1995 and the two terms are used so interchangeably in several articles. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light Rail Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022195642/http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]