Talk:Yellow Line (Bangkok)

Thailand Low‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Monorail / Operations Mid‑importance

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 the Monorail task force.
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MRT Yellow Line. 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:

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) 00:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why rename?

Setawut, What's the point of renaming the article to Bangkok Monorail Yellow Line (and the same for the Pink Line article)? AFAIK, Bangkok Monorail is just the brand/name of the companies that will be operating the lines (which are still owned by the MRTA), and I haven't seen any evidence that they will become the monorails lines' system name. The MRT Blue Line article isn't called BEM Blue Line, and rightly so. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I have no idea what official name to be used for the monorail system, but at least, according to its payment system (which will be shared with BTS Skytrain) and its operators, i'm sure that it no longer be able to count as MRT. This is just the most properly unofficial name for this moment. The article name should be changed when they announce the official name in coming days. If BEM won the bid for these lines, i'm sure that names MRT Pink and MRT Yellow would take place, but since it wasn't, the name will be changed --Setawut (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Yellow Line (Bangkok) Matthewmayer (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Paul_012, can you please revert the Yellow and Pink line articles to "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line" titles. Why would you change the name just because you are for some reason uncertain and why now? Would it not be more appropriate to seek comment from others who have been updating the pages first?

Both of these lines are MRTA lines, they are contracted by the MRTA just as was done with the MRT Blue and MRT Purple lines. They are both part of the OTP Master Plan. They have been granted by the MRTA to a private concessionaire just as the MRT Blue and MRT Purple lines have been. In this case a joint venture BSR who will fund construction. The process of awarding a private operator will be no different for the MRT Orange line, nor the MRT Brown line if that is eventually approved.

You'll find both projects on the MRTA website. Yappofloyd —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yappofloyd, the move reflects the concerns discussed in June, in the above three paragraphs. The lines are to be owned by the MRTA (Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand), which is a different entity from the MRT (Metropolitan Rapid Transit) system. The way things stand, the MRT brand has become closely associated with its operator BEM (previously BMCL), and as Setawut said, it's doubtful that the pink and yellow lines will be considered part of the MRT (though this remains to be seen). The name Yellow Line (Bangkok) was suggested by Matthewmayer, and no one opposed. MRTA Yellow Line would also be accurate though. Do you think it would be preferable? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MRTA also owns the Sukhumvit Line South Extension, but the name of this extension is still "BTS Sukhumvit Line". My opinion right now is we should wait until the operators (Bangkok Monorail) make announcement about the monorail system name, which could be "BTS Yellow Line" or "Bangkok Monorail Yellow Line" or etc,. --Setawut (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setawut Frankly, you are patently incorrect. It belies belief that something so simple and patently obvious to everyone who understands the mass transit framework in Bangkok is somehow a cause of confusion for someone who purports to have some interest in the subject. Seemingly, a discussion was had in June in a bubble of ignorance. A suggestion please, jump on a Thai language transit site and assert that these 2 lines are not MRT lines - see what the response is from Thais on those sites! A question to you: please provide referenced evidence that these lines are NOT MRT lines. How is that WIki demands referenced articles, yet you are able to assert "we don't really know at this stage" without providing any references nor evidence?

Firstly, the MRT name stems from MRTA agency which owns the lines - they are NOT different entities. MRT is not an entity, it is a derived name!! (Please show me exactly where this separate MRT entity is located???) The MRTA is the primary government agency responsible for Mass Transit implementation in Bangkok operating within the Ministry of Transport - although it actually does have national jurisdiction and is currently implementing other mass transit Lines/networks eg. Phuket and Khon Khen.That is why the lines are called MRT Blue Line, MRT Purple Line, MRT Orange Line AND MRT Yellow Line & MRT Pink Line. The OTP does the planning follwing the 2005 Master Plan and the MRTA does the implementation - though generally in a dysfunctional manner.

Did you even bother to look at their website or even do some research of referenced articles and press statements of which there are literally thousands?!! There is no confusion anywhere that the MRT Pink line and MRT Yellow lines are both MRT lines. This fact is common knowledge among everyone in the transit industry. Would you actually like to speak to someone at the MRTA who will state this fact? http://www.mrta.co.th/en/projectelectrictrain/yellowline/ "Home > MRT Project > Yellow Line" http://www.mrta.co.th/en/projectelectrictrain/pinkline/ "Home > MRT Project > Yellow Line"

The fact that these are MRT lines is regardless of the operator that wins the tender to operate the line or even the type of mode of mass transit - it has nothing to do with being associated with BEM (formerly BMCL) as you erroneously state. The MRT Purple Line was called such well before BMCL/BEM won the tender to operate it. You are patently completely confused and in your confusion advocating and wait and see approach due to the fact that you don't understand how the transit framework is structured. And in your confusion by removing the MRT name, it only causes confusion for others.

Secondly, it is true that the MRTA conducted the tender for the BTS Sukhumvit line southern extension. This was due to the fact that the extension is wholly outside the province of Bangkok (BMA jusrisdiction ends at soi Bearing) and within Samut Prakhan province. However, you are incorrect insofar as this line has subsequently been transferred to the BMA due to financial issues after 18 months of negotiations and much political pressure. The BMA will operate the line and obviously awarded operations to BTSC. In any event, the MRTA is still responsible for the BTS northern extension from Mo Chit to Khu Khot.

However, your logic is flawed is your assertion. Obviously, they retain the same operational system name of BTS regardless of whether it is the BMA or MRTA in order to avoid confusion for pax.

I do apologise if this seems blunt but this really is a rather futile discussion borne out of ignorance.Yappofloyd

Yappofloyd, please do cool down a bit; your comments aren't demonstrating any better understanding of the issue than that shown in the discussions you're belittling. The things you say are obvious and common knowledge are only based on people's assumptions and vernacular talk, but has never been officially established. As I explained, the MRT name stands for "Metropolitan Rapid Transit", and is not a shortening of the MRTA (which stands for "Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand"). In Thai these are รถไฟฟ้ามหานคร (Rot Faifa Mahanakhon) and องค์การรถไฟฟ้าขนส่งมวลชนแห่งประเทศไทย (Ongkan Rot Faifa Khonson Muanchon Haeng Prathet Thai), completely different terms.

Now, "Rot Faifa Mahanakhon" actually used to be the former name of the MRTA, but this was changed in 2000. The name has since only been used in the official name of the Blue Line ("Metropolitan Rapid Transit Chaloem Ratchamongkhon Line", or "M.R.T. Chaloem Ratchamongkhon Line" for short),[1] and the Purple Line only after its completion, when it received the name "Chalong Ratchadham". All documents during construction only refer to it as รถไฟฟ้าสายสีม่วง (rot faifa sai si muang), or "electric train, purple line". This is the reason why MRTA page you linked to is titled "THE PINK LINE", without any mention of M.R.T., while the operational lines are titled "M.R.T. Chaloem Ratchamongkhon Line" and "The M.R.T. Chalong Ratchadham". The fact that "MRT Project" is shown in the top menu is due to a mistranslation. In Thai, the menu item is "โครงการรถไฟฟ้า", which literally translated would be "(electric) train projects".

That said, this only covers official usage of the name รถไฟฟ้ามหานคร (Metropolitan Rapid Transit, M.R.T.). We just don't know whether the actual use of the brand name (MRT, without the dots, with the M-in-a-tunnel logo) will follow the previous official pattern, given how BEM has become closely involved in its marketing as mentioned above. (The official MRT map didn't even use the logo for the Purple Line when it opened.[2]) You might think it to be obvious, but the fact is that it will only depend on how the MRTA and operating companies decide to brand the lines, which could be either way, and we just don't know yet.

As an example in response to your request for "referenced evidence that these lines are NOT MRT lines", take a look at the official 2010 master plan.[3] Here it doesn't even follow official usage, but instead uses "MRT" to refer to "mass rapid transit" in general. Note that it covers only the Green, Blue, Purple, and Orange lines. The Pink and Yellow lines are in a separate category of feeder lines. Though I'm not saying that this is conclusive evidence that they won't be called MRT; it's just evidence that usage varies and we still don't know.

Now, all this background information doesn't actually matter at all. The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. that article titles should follow the names most commonly used by reliable sources. Going through the top Google News results for "Bangkok pink line", Coconuts.co refers to it and the yellow line as "Yellow and Pink Line monorail elevated train projects".[4] The International Railway Journal: "Bangkok’s Pink and Yellow line projects".[5] The Nation: "Pink Line mass-transit route" and "Pink Line and the Yellow Line monorail projects".[6] The Bangkok Post: "the Pink Line from Khae Rai to Min Buri, the Yellow Line between Lat Phrao and Sam Rong in Samut Prakan, and the Orange Line linking the Thailand Cultural Centre to Min Buri".[7] Khaosod English: "Pink and Yellow monorail lines".[8] Reuters: "a Pink Line and a Yellow Line".[9] None of these articles refer to the pink and yellow line as part of the MRT system (though some mention the Blue and Purple MRT lines). Only Xinhua makes reference to "the MRT Pink Line and the MRT Yellow Line" in an image caption,[10] but doesn't in this full article: "Pink, Yellow lines of Bangkok's rapid transit".[11] There simply is no evidence of reliable sources referring to the lines as "MRT Pink Line" or "MRT Yellow Line". --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012 Hi Paul, I'm am cool. I'm just being direct with a high degree of incredulity regarding this discussion, please don't mistake one for the other. You actually erred in making the leap - with the change - before looking. I assure you that other Wiki members would be equally flabbergasted that a 2-3 are questioning an obvious fact.

A) Your lack of attention to find factual detail leaves much to be desired. I'm especially surprised that you would use a click bait site like Coconuts which specializes in salacious and tabloid style 'articles' as your first reference! I do find it somewhat appalling that you limit yourself to secondary sources such as newspaper articles for reference material rather than checking primary sources. (I didn’t think that I would need to refer to primary material in my previous post as the matter really is most obvious to those who have followed mass transit development... or so I thought)!

It is indeed most ironic given that you felt the need to post the Wiki policy regarding Reliable sources and yet none of those referenced by you were neither primary sources, nor accurate on the matter at hand - at not least in your erroneous conclusion! Such does provide an apprehension regarding the veracity of your references regarding other Wiki articles that you have authored or edited, but the the example just reinforces why the standard for "reliable" sources should be high. To state the obvious, a primary source in this context would be a govt agency or ministry such as the MRTA or MOT, the private concessionaire of the lines such as the majority stakeholder of BSR, BTSC, or any other relevant legal document pertaining to these lines issued pursuant to Thai law.

B) As you do rightly state, "this background information doesn't matter at all." As someone who has posted and referenced hundreds of articles over the last 15 years on public transport issues in Thailand, I can tell you that the only consistency with the usage of terms is that such is usually inconsistent - leaving aside journalistic standard issues. Patently, your Thai is very good and you should especially know this from reading the Thai language press. I can post as many articles which use the term "MRT" as I can articles which don't. You'll also find sometimes MRT is used incorrectly when referring to the MRTA. (I was actually going to link a whole bunch dating back 10 years and decided it was a waste of my time - it can be done if so desired but I doubt after reading my primary sources that such will be required). The IRG is also not so consistent, for one thing the author of those articles does not reside in Thailand and you'll find that the usage of the term "MRT" is almost non existent even with previous articles on the Blue and Purple lines (The same applies for the Int. Railway Gazette).

C) You see, I'm familiar with this material and are many others who have contributed to these articles that we are discussing. It makes me again wonder that which I suggested in my first post, have you pursued the option of querying the matter with those on Wiki who have contributed to these two respective articles? Or with Thais on transit forums? Patently, your Thai is good enough to do so in Thai. As a common courtesy it really would have been the most appropriate course of action at the outset. It does not appear to me that either you or Setawut have contributed much at all to any of the BKK mass transit articles, but I could be completely wrong on that. However, many others have contributed and yet they were not asked? Or were they?

Also, given your Thai language ability it would have been most easy to query the matter with Thais in Thai on Thai forums that have existed for nearly a decade for example, strangely enough threads titled "MRT Yellow Line" and "MRT Pink Line". Goodness, I even suggested/offered that you contact someone at the MRTA!

D) Okay, a couple of minor points of reply. Firstly, I never said that MRT is a shortening of MRTA as you write.

I wrote; "the MRT name stems from MRTA agency which owns the lines - they are NOT different entities. MRT is not an entity, it is a derived name". Stems from and derived does not mean shortened. So please don't misrepresent what I stated as it is sloppy on your part. The entity point was in response to Setuwat.

i)The fact that the MRTA changed its Thai name in 2000 was due to the agency having a national mandate and not just a Bangkok one, the Mahanakhon was obviously inconsistent with that aim. Especially since the MRTA has been working on projects in Phuket, Chiang Mai, Khon Kean etc for the last decade. (A couple of those are finally coming to fruition). I suggest that you might be incorrect as the MRTA refers to itself as การรถไฟฟ้าขนส่งมวลชนแห่งประเทศไทย NOT องค์การรถไฟฟ้าขนส่งมวลชนแห่งประเทศไทย as you wrote, the 'Ghan' is essentially a verb in this context to my understanding. Common usage in the Thai Press is genrally องค์การรถไฟฟ้าขนส่งมวลชนแห่งประเทศไทย. However, my Thai is limited and I had to double check with a colleague. Thus, I defer to your expertise on this minor matter.

E) Secondly, regarding the Purple Line it is completely incorrect to state that MRT was only used for the Purple line after its completion, "and the Purple Line only after its completion, when it received the name "Chalong Ratchadham" ". It is actually the opposite.

The line was termed MRT Purple Line well before it received its official name and indeed well before the line was completed in 2016. Indeed, you'll find plenty of references in Thai and English to "MRT Purple Line" years before the contract was awarded for a 30 year concession to BEM in October 2012. Is the MRTA a reliable source as in their original tender documents they even refer to the line as MRT Purple Line. 1) Here is the tender doc address from Dec 2010, http://www.mrta.co.th/e_aution/mrt_p...ne_project.pdf Ref post #579 on Skyscraper thread MRT Puple Line - part 3, page 4 - [Note link not accepted by Wiki but can be provided]. (I have the tender docs elsewhere but can retrieve them). 2) Here is a 2010 MRTA video which refers to the line as MRT Purple Line, [PWEDqJDHRBA] - type this into Youtube search as Wiki doesn't accept the full link. 3) A Bangkok Post article "on June 17, 2008 approved the construction cost of the MRT Purple Line Project, totaling Baht 36,055 million". Bangkok Post 2 June 2010, Skyscraper thread MRT Puple Line - part 3, page 4 - [Note link not accepted by Wiki but can be provided] 4) A Prachachart article, "จะปรับแผนการดำเนินการก่อสร้างโครงการรถไฟฟ้าสายสีม่วงช่วงบางซื่อ-บางใหญ่" 15 Oct 2009, Prachachart Business, post #313 on Skyscraper thread MRT Puple Line - part 3 , page 16 [Note link not accepted by Wiki but can be provided] 5) Even the construction summary chart dating back to 2009 was titled MRT Purple Line, [12]. I can find earlier verions if required. There are literally hundreds of articles in those skyscraper threads (I've even posted some going back a decade) that you can peruse at you own leisure and see that the term MRT was commonly used well before tender, contract being awarded and a years before completion. You can also refer to MRTA Annual reports for the years 09-13.

F) The Proof of the obvious: Finally, to cut to the chase with referenced, "reliable", primary sources to factually prove that these two lines are MRT lines;

1) BTSC document dated 16 June 2017, filed with the Stock Exchange (SET) which refers to both as "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line" at least 6 times each!, [13]. Mmmm, the BTSC and a legal document to the SET.... is that a reliable source? Better than Coconuts for sure!

2) BTSC notice dated 14 December 2016 to the SET which refers to both as "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line", thrice for each[14]

3) BTSC notice to SET dated 19 June 2017 which refers to both as "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line", 4 times for each line each including 3 times in 1 para! [15]

4) BTS Group Press Release dated 16 June 2017 titled 'The Contract Signing Ceremony for MRT the Pink Line Project: Khae Rai - Min Buri Section and MRT the Yellow Line Project: Lat Phrao - Samrong Section', [16].

5) MRTA Annual report 2014 which refers to "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line" projects - see pages 73, 90-91, 92-93 etc, Please do Smile when reading this report! [17]

6) MRTA Annual report 2016 which refers to "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line" projects - see pages 65-66, 85, 87 etc [18] Note: ignore the Google not secure site message. Note: I've not listed other earlier Annual Reports but they state the same.

7) MRTA briefing document dated March 2016 which I have but couldn't located on the MRTA site, but which is thankfully still online on the UNESCAP site which refers to both as MRT lines -pgs 8 & 9, [19]. (You'll note that later on on pg 24 & pg 26 the doc doesn't use MRT for each specific project but it doesn't for the Orange line and Purple Line South extension wither. That doesn't then mean that the Orange and Purple lines are NOT MRT lines)

I'll note that it took me all of 10 mins in total to locate each of these documents online and others which I have not listed. Now, I do trust given that you wrote "There simply is no evidence of reliable sources referring to the lines as "MRT Pink Line" or "MRT Yellow Line" ", that you will finally accept what I stated at the outset give the preponderance of the evidence from official legal entities such as the MRTA, SET and BTSC.

Summary: I trust that the matter is now settled and that we don't have to waste any more time given that I have referenced numerous primary sources. I hope that you will revert the article to the correct title.

You wrote, "The things you say are obvious and common knowledge are only based on people's assumptions and vernacular talk, but has never been officially established." I have patently shown you that not only it is officially established but that there are literally dozens of primary sources of such and hundreds of secondary sources. I have also pointed you in the direction of those secondary sources which can further assist you informing yourself beyond the primary sources. I have explained the inherent danger of just relying on secondary sources given their respective historical inconsistencies as you did, in this case ones that lead you to a completely incorrect conclusion due to the appalling limited nature of your search.

I do question how it is that you felt the need to change a title given your ignorance when you had ample opportunity to query Wiki members both in english and thai languages, AND you had the opportunity to seek guidance on the matter from other reliable sources rather than rely on a quick google search which generates a Coconuts page as the first result. Some of those members have spent many hours improving these Wiki articles. One would assume that standards in Wiki would be improving and I do question why you felt you had the authority to make this change given your own ignorance on the matter? I certainly would never entertain the notion of editing one of your articles on matters I know little about, just because "we don't know yet", without first messaging the contributors on that article with queries for information on the matter.

I accept your apology in advance and wish you a Happy Loy Kratong! Yappofloyd —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

Wikipedia policy explicitly prefers secondary sources over primary ones. See WP:PRIMARY.
Regarding the links you provided in (E):
- (1) The PDF link you provided is broken. You should have copied the full link (http://www.mrta.co.th/e_aution/mrt_purple_line_project.pdf ), not the display text. It's down anyway, but the original document is in presumably in Thai. The file name itself depends only on what the web administrator decided to name it, and does not reflect the reliability of the document itself. Also it's page 29, not 4.
- (2) I've watched the entire video, and no where is the name "MRT" or รถไฟฟ้ามหานคร mentioned. The video title was given by the uploader, an unofficial account of CentralPlazaLadprao. Not the MRTA. So not reliable either.
- (3) You didn't provided a post number, but I'll trust you on the quote. It's one instance that shows how news sources are inconsistent in their usage.
- (4) Post 313 doesn't have any Prachachat article. It's a Thai newspaper, though, so I don't see how it would use the term "MRT".
- (5) That image is uploaded to upic.me, so it's hard to tell who the original creator is.
For the documents in (F):
- (1) to (4) are unofficial translations of Thai documents, all of which use the term รถไฟฟ้า. It appears they're using "MRT" as a generic term for "rapid transit", not as the actual name of the system. This is also the case for (7).
- Of all the links you provided, only the MRTA annual reports (5) and (6) actually support your argument. Although "MRT" is also being used here as a generic term for "rapid transit" and not as the actual system name, the fact that the MRTA does so in official documents does lend some credibility to the use of the term. However, you must also have noted that the Bearing–Samut Prakan section is referred to as the "MRT Green Line Project", yet we don't call it that in the Sukhumvit Line article, as previously discussed. So we don't just always follow usage in any one official publication. Hmm... how strange.
You still seem rather unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. In addition to the preference for secondary sources mentioned above, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research also mean that it doesn't matter what you or I or other people on public transport forums think, only what is documented by reliable sources. I have shown sources that support one position, and you have shown some which support another. Discussing on the talk page like this is how we gain WP:Consensus, but it is not helped by making ad hominem accusations against other editors, which violates the WP:No personal attacks policy. And finally, editors are not expected to ask for permission before making changes to articles. See WP:Be bold for details. In any case, talk pages of articles are exactly where such discussions are supposed to take place. This was briefly discussed in June, and you didn't join the discussion then. So perhaps you now wish to re-visit the issue, fine. But do not accuse others of failing to discuss the matter when it is your fault that you missed it the first time. The WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is at the heart of editing Wikipedia, and you are free to revert the change and rename the pages back to their old names until a conclusion is reached. If you don't know how to do this, see Help:How to move a page.

I don't see how apologies are needed for constructively contributing to discussions. Perhaps if one of us realises they have been using assertiveness as a cover for being rude, however, I'd gladly accept. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, it really is simple.

The easiest way you resolve your own ignorance on this matter is to contact the MRTA - which I've now suggested that you do for the third time. Also, the BTSC (BSR majority holder). Please do so and advise them that you believe their MRT lines are not MRT lines. I even offered to provide a contact for the MRTA.

Also, you can easily log onto the Thai language transport forums, "MRT Yellow Line" and "MRT Pink Line" and tell the very informed members that these are not MRT lines. Some of those members are transport planners and people working in the industry, they'll highlight those secondary sources that you love and probably refer you to some official ones as I have. At the very least, an objective and open minded Wiki member who was uncertain on this issue could have perused such forums for numerous secondary sources. As you've expressed, you prefer secondary sources of incorrect newspaper reports over primary sources - click bait sites like Coconuts over the official statutory agency, the MRTA! Does that not seem bizarre?

Thus, no reply from you to (B) (you don't wish to address the point that I made that there are as many correct secondary sources and there are incorrect ones due to poor reporting standards - hence the importance of primary sources to ascertain such a simple fact), (C) - more on this later, nor (D) .

(E) For these 5 points, I merely highlighted that you were again completely incorrect when you stated that the MRT Purple Line was so named, "and the Purple Line only after its completion". The reality that Wiki doesn't allow those internet links to Skyscraper city pages in a talk page - where numerous relevant historical articles are posted. However, doesn't stop you from taking a few minutes to find those examples and inform yourself. However, to answer your replies;

1) The web administrator is the MRTA, it is their site that they released the tender on http://www.mrta.co.th/e_aution/mrt_purple_line_project.pdf! That reply is as nonsensical as stating that a progress report http://www.mrta.co.th/en/projectelectrictrain/construction_progress_report/ can't be accepted because that's how "the web administrator decided to name it"

2) It's an MRTA video. Perhaps also ignore other official videos from the MRTA posted on their PR MRTA Youtube Channel such as here [oJSfgRMkBzg] "MRT Yellow Line" , here [Cjt3kDyjDWo] "MRT Pink Line" or here [l4csAHq6f3U]. again cut and paste into Youtube. Maybe we need to tell the MRTA PR department that they are incorrect?

3) Sorry, the post number must have been deleted by me when I had to delete the web links. However, you'll find numerous other examples if you peruse the threads of the posted articles.

4) Obviously, I posted an example of a Thai language article to highlight the Thai language usage. You didn't write what is does say though.....

5) It's the progress chart that was periodically issued by the MRTA is conjuction with the contractors (contracts C1/C2/C3). These progress reports used to be available on the now defunct MRT Purple Line website (that one the web administrator just decided to name like that).

Again, these were limited to proving how your statement regarding the MRT Purple Line was wrong (ie. you stated that it wasn't previous called MRT until after completion).

(F) I've proved that these lines are MRT lines with numerous sources from relevant statutory and legal bodies involved in the projects. The BTSC is legally obliged to provide english translations to the SET, yet you just ignore these by making up your own view that these are "unofficial translations" and thus these documents are then ignored . Even when there is conclusive proof that these are MRT lines, you just ignore it without a well reasoned rebuttal. Where is the substantive analysis refuting the integrity of these legal documents to the SET? Please rebut this, and perhaps inform the SET that the BTSC has breached Thai law by providing incorrect statements.

Your biased disposition is highlighted in a more flagerant manner in replying to the MRTA Annual reports that I posted - here is 2015 as well; MRTA Annual report 2015 which refers to "MRT Pink Line" and "MRT Yellow Line" projects - see pages 84-87 etc. [20]

Yet again, official, legal reports which you just chose to ignore without asserting any logical reason why. Please state why would the MRTA use the "MRT Yellow Line" and "MRT Pink Line" as official titles and in the body of the text IF these lines are not MRT lines?? Please do inform the MRTA and the MOT that the MRTA is wrong in their official Annual Reports. It really it difficult to conclude that such a view is completely devoid of any objectivity on the matter as any reasonable person would be highly persuaded by these annual reports.

I previously made the point, "(You'll note that later on on pg 24 & pg 26 the doc doesn't use MRT for each specific project but it doesn't for the Orange line and Purple Line South extension wither (Sic). That doesn't then mean that the Orange and Purple lines are NOT MRT lines)". In your illogical conclusion you would conclude that the Orange Line, Blue Line and Purple Line are NOT MRT lines! We'd better tell everyone that the Blue and Purple lines are NOT MRT lines just because the MRTA didn't use MRT 100% of the time in an AR! This is how silly such a flawed assertion is on this matter.

Seemingly, you think that your strongest point is my unfamiliarity with Wiki polices. However, yet again you misdirect as the context of the policy is important, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources", obviously refers to matters involving analysis of issues, historical debates and discussion of opinions etc. All irrelevant here. We are not analyzing mass transit policy, the pro and cons of historical implementation in Bangkok, nor the policy framework, as examples. It is purely a simple factual issue, are these MRT lines or not? One would think that primary, reliable source material from government agencies would be sufficient. Unfortunately, you seemingly prefer a click bait site like Coconuts over the MRTA or BTSC.

It is really futile if in your entrenched bias you don't want to believe reality and have shown a complete inability to refute facts from official sources. It's like dealing with a Flat Earth Society member who chooses to ignore plain facts, one can't persuade someone who will ignore reality. Please do take the time to; - 5 mins to call the MRTA and - 5 mins to call the BTSC and or the SET, - take 5 mins to checks those secondary sources in those forums. 3 easy tasks for you to pursue which will take less time than posting yet another nonsensical, biased reply.

I've provided you with sufficient referenced reliable official sources; 3 Annual Reports, 4 official MRTA videos, 4 BTSC (as BSR) official sources - 3 of which are legal letters to the SET. To any reasonable, objective and open minded person these official primary sources would be most persuasive if they had complete ignorance on the issue.

Again, you made two rather inappropriate statements which I've proven to be incorrect; 1) "There simply is no evidence of reliable sources referring to the lines as "MRT Pink Line" or "MRT Yellow Line" " - obviously there are reliable sources as they have been linked, but still you disregard such. 2) "The things you say are obvious and common knowledge are only based on people's assumptions and vernacular talk, but has never been officially established." - it has been officially established, but yet again you offer no explanation why those official sources should be completely ignored.

I'll state again,You've still not provided a single, credible reliable source stating that these are not MRT lines. Only a few examples where the absence of the term MRT leads you to an incorrect conclusion. Hardly, a reasonable nor reliable standard. As I've highlighted above, in that illogical world, the Orange, Blue and Purple Lines ARE NOT MRT lines because they are not always 100% referred too as MRT lines in the press or official reports. That is an absurd conclusion is it not?

Ultimately, whilst you as an editor don't need permission to make an edit, the disrespect displayed in not consulting other wiki members who have contributed to these articles is both arrogant and plainly rude! At the very least they would have provided you with more information and views. Especially, where there was no absolute evidence to support the edit and as you said, that you were uncertain. Two people is not consensus, which is why I keep encouraging you to contact the MRTA (or BTSC or MOT or SET), message other wiki members who have contributed to these articles and message Thai posters on pertinent transport forums?

I have been direct and stated that the conclusion that you arrived at - which was absent credible and official sources - is illogical. When requested to disprove that these are MRT lines, the first source that you referred to to support your decision was a Coconuts page! Then a couple of press articles. I'm sorry to be blunt, but no reasonable person would use Cocounts as a suitable reference. Reputable and official organisation documents have been referenced and yet completely ignored, there hasn't even been a concession that these are credible sources which should be given some weight to resolve the discussion. Not even entertaining the possibility that these official sources could provide some doubt in your mind on the issue is strange. This strongly infers bias or an intentional disregard. Somehow what is being asserted is that a click bait site like Coconuts should be given more weight than the preponderance of credible, official sources which are completely disregarded without any reason.

Clearly, what is needed here is for an objective independent Wiki admin to evaluate the matter. Goodness, this is such a simple matter! Yappofloyd —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yappofloyd, there are plenty of ways to request assistance on the issue from other editors. They are outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS In case I wasn't clear before, I've already stated above that I won't object if you reverted the page moves. I never felt strongly about the issue, and don't quite see what's the point of arguing if you're not going to edit the page. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2020

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: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRTA Yellow Line → Yellow Line (Bangkok)
MRTA Pink Line → Pink Line (Bangkok)
MRT Brown Line → Brown Line (Bangkok)
MRT Orange Line → Orange Line (Bangkok)

– These articles were originally created under the titles "MRT ___ Line". In 2017 (see #Why rename? above), concerns were raised that "MRT" (from "Metropolitan Rapid Transit") is now recognised primarily as a brand of the system operated by Bangkok Expressway and Metro Public Company Limited (previously Bangkok Metro PCL), and that the future Pink and Yellow lines, whose concession was won by a BTS-led consortium, are unlikely to be known as such. These two were moved to Pink Line (Bangkok) and Yellow Line (Bangkok), but this was later contested by User:Yappofloyd, who made a lot of fuss (see #October 2017 above) but did not move the pages. Later, in 2018, I moved the pages to MRTA Pink Line and MRTA Yellow Line, thinking that it seemed reasonable to name them after the MRTA (Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand), the owner of the projects. I recently did the same for the Brown Line and Orange Line articles, but this again triggered a strong response from Yappofloyd (see MRT (Bangkok)#MRT vs MRTA for article titles), so I have reverted the moves and am now suggesting that all of these future lines simply be titled "___ Line (Bangkok)", to avoid confusion and speculation about what Line belonging to what system altogether. Since the 2017 discussion showed that there's no consensus on how WP:COMMONNAME can be interpreted in this case, disambiguating by the city seems optimal. This is consistent with Grey Line (Bangkok) and Light Blue Line (Bangkok), which have been stable at these titles for several years. Not included in this discussion are the operational MRT Blue Line and MRT Purple Line. Paul_012 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal or some variant. The first entry on dab MRT is Mass Rapid Transit, a generic abbreviation. Qualifying these titles with the city name will distinguish the articles from Yellow Line (Jakarta MRT), Taipei MRT Brown Line, Orange Line (Singapore) → Circle MRT line, etc. Certes (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard naming practices; also future-proof against further franchise changes. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support This choice is future proof since the MRT prefix will not guarantee a woldwide unique name. However, realising that the lines extend beyond the city limits of Bangkok and looking at naming in WP for other places, using "Bangkok Metro" is a better qualifier (standing for metropolis). For example "Orange line (Bangkok Metro)" (for some reason most other articles use a capital M in Metro). Furthermore if this request succeeds, consistency would entail including the blue, green and purple lines. −Woodstone (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles using "City Metro" with a capital M are likely referring to the name of the rail system rather than "metropolitan area", which wouldn't work here since "Bangkok Metro" is generally understood to refer only to the MRT system. I guess it could be "Pink Line (Greater Bangkok)" for the sake of accuracy, but I don't think that's necessary. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There may be a misunderstanding here as the MRTA is the owner, not the franchise operator. Any future change with the franchise operator will have no impact upon the line name. The lines always be termed 'MRT lines' as gazetted by the owner of the lines, the MRTA. eg. MRT Orange line extension tender Yappofloyd (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

EBM-Tiny logo (Official).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

EBM-Tiny logo (Official).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MRT branding and logo

I just saw that the MRT branding and "M" logo is indeed being used in the Yellow and Pink line stations' signage. The use of the logo could become a problem, since it's a registered trademark of BEM which the MRTA doesn't appear to have legally licensed.[21] It's not Wikipedia's problem, but personally I'd wait until the systems actually open before incorporating them in templates and other supporting material, to avoid the risk of having to roll them back if there are further changes. As for the lines being considered MRT lines, that would appear to be the official stance of the MRTA, but the article titles will have to follow what is most commonly used by reliable sources, which so far don't appear to consistently refer to them as MRT. I've restored/added the link to MRT (Bangkok) in the opening sentences, but it's just excessive and unnatural to stick "MRT" into every instance of the name as had previously been added, so I stand by that removal. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Now that the line has begun operation and is indeed being referred to as the MRT (รถไฟฟ้ามหานคร), under my original reasoning the option should be open to move the article back to MRT Yellow Line. But other arguments have since been raised, including the fact that it might be ambiguous with systems in Taiwan and Jakarta. And as the articles for the Blue Line and Purple Line have also since been renamed, those will also need to be addressed. Maybe the form Yellow Line (Bangkok) is the most precise, and it's best to leave the article here at this title. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaving the title as Yellow Line (Bangkok) and referring it to as the MRT Yellow Line in the lead section is clearest. 'Yellow Line' is the WP:COMMONNAME and Bangkok disambiguates it. Matthewmayer (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]