Jump to content

Talk:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Individual Stations rail succession boxes

I've started changing the rail succession boxes in the individual stations to use the "standardised" s-line ones after someone mentioned this on the SGpedians notice board. How ever there are still many MRT and LRT stations to change! So hopefully other wikipedians can help to change them :) Example of the code to replace the old ones:

{{s-info|name=Simei}}
{{s-rail-start}}
{{s-rail|title=SMRT}}
{{s-line|system=SMRT|line=East West|previous=Tampines|next=Tanah Merah}}
{{end}}

For LRT Stations, system=SLRT.

As a result of adapting the standardised box, there are several templates created, and i've categorised them into Category:Singapore_rail_succession_templates.

Note: For those links to MRT line colours, can use {{SMRT color| line name }}. See usage here or here.

Please help to update the pages! Cheers :) - oahiyeel talk 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MRT/LRT locator map template

I've merged the MRT/LRT locator map template into the MRT locator map template! See usage here. Cheers - oahiyeel talk 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New map for the Singapore MRT

The existing Singapore MRT map is quite a work of art, but for quite some time now I've had two concerns with it:

  1. It's a carbon-copy replica of the LTA map, to the extent that they could almost certainly sue for copyright infringement and win.
  2. It's in PNG format, making it very difficult to manipulate and unsuitable for printing (the station names are illegible at any size under A4).

I've thus created a new map over at Wikitravel which attempts to address both these concerns: SVG original, PNG export. It's not going to win any awards for style, and it only represents the existing MRT network (no LRT either), but it's very clear even at small sizes and free of copyright concerns. I'd be delighted if somebody wishes to extend it. Jpatokal 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps as grossly "ripped-off" as Image:Singapore mrt lrt map future version3.png has appeared in the New Paper. The Land Transport Authority merely came forward to state that the map isnt an official LTA publication, and did not take further action. They even gave the author "credit" for his work. Of course LTA could sue, but it is heartening to know that in this instance, their reaction has been notably positive.--Huaiwei 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this topic has been dead for 3 months, but i think what i want to said is appropriate for this topic. since the existing S'pore MRT map is a carbon-copy replica of the LTA map (or almost a carbon-copy), i've created a map totally not a replica of LTA map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MRT_%26_LRT_System_Map_2.png. i know that this map includes MRT lines that have not been announced yet, but i could erase it away if you guys prefer my map. it also received positive comment on [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=18160693&postcount=512 this forum] (ya, i know that this is not important, but i just show it for fun). also, since circle line is opening quite, but not very soon, my map also includes Circle Line, let alone Downtown Line. in a totally different shape thhan LTA map some more. disadvantage, no station code and bus interchange indicator. so what do you guys think about this? like it? acceptable of the article? Aranho (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Although it looks so radically different that I suspect most Singaporeans will find it rather hard to use. But please tell me you have a vector-format (SVG) original, or did you draw that as a PNG? Jpatokal (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried searching the URA, LTA and the Internet for references to the North Shore line connecting Punggol to Sembawang, but I was not able to find any. Can someone please share where the plans for building this line is inferred from?--203.143.159.19 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)--203.143.159.19 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Awhile ago I actually changed the picture on the article in the future expansion to this. but another editor reverted my edit. personally i feel this map is neater and has a better representation of future speculations on MRT expansion. - oahiyeel talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I drew a sketch first on two piece of A4 size paper taped together and scan it on my PC (that's explian why you can see pencil markings on the map). i then added colours and station names using paint and save it under PNG format. i will post a SVG format on wiki if i know how to convert it from PNG to SVG. don't know how to do it. anyway, why SVG format is recommend or rather, a must? oh, and oahiyeel, i suppose you have seen my map before i brought this topic up on wikipedia, like on skyscrapercity forum... jpatokal, i believe you also have an account on skyscrapercity forum too... Aranho (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (edited x2)
Arrrrgh! Too late: PNG cannot be converted to SVG. SVG is a vector format, meaning that instead of individual pixels, it stores lines and objects, so you can easily manipulate, shrink, expand the image. Download eg. Inkscape and find out. Jpatokal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for asking but how did the holland and seletar line came about? and those unannounced lrt line? Ragnaroknike (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're aware that most MRT and LRT lines shown on my map are planned, but not finalised. if you are aware of it, than good. these lines you mentioned above (holland and seletar) are actually from this URA's concept plan 2001. note that there is some difference between my map and ura's. hope this answers your question. Aranho (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Singapore Concept Plan map is an excellent base map to consider drawing our new map from. I plan to work from there and you are most welcome to make a similar attempt as well. Alternatively, do feel free to experiment with other base maps if you so prefer.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and btw we can actually have two maps: one to scale, and the other not to scale (as per current maps). There is room for both maps in the article. I can even assist to write a new section based on the map drawn to scale, because I just realised this article actually fails to explain why certain routes were prioritised, and why the routes are aligned the way they are.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aranho, an image that was drawn by hand and scanned will be rendered as a rastor file. Conversion to vector format (which is what inkscape is based on) is a rather laborious job, especially if your original scanned image it not completely "clean" of unwanted pixels. I can clearly see your erasure marks in the plain spaces, which will be problemetic. The best option is still to completely redraw the map digitally using vector-based software, preferably via Inkscape since it is freeware. This will also give it a more professional look. I find your circular rendering of the circle line quite cute, but I think many Singaporeans are going to have problems with it since they still will naturally look for the historically important north south and east west lines, both of which seem to be visually lost with the whole bunch of new lines. BTW, I hope that in the near future, we can create an original map which is informative, uncluttered, and yet visually appealing. Check out the maps in the MTR article (especially this one) for some inspiration. I am still trying to get a hang out of inkscape, so I hope to be of some help soon.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I think i should give inkscape a try. sounds like a cool program to use. and this time, i think i'll try drawing a map geographically correct as possible. And one thing, i can't find the reason why the way i drew CCL is cute. huaiwei, may i know why you find it cute? Aranho (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeap the issue will be trying to draw a nice basemap first. A map drawn to scale will be great...for we hardly have any of those, especially official maps, so this will be a good initiative by wikipedians. I may start drawing one soon as well, so we may compare and combine into a single map. And yeah....that map was cute coz this was the first time I see the Circle line actually being in a circle! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I applaud the effort by all involved to create a new map showing the future of the MRT. However, I would really prefer that a very clear distinction be made between approved lines like Thompson and Eastern Region and unapproved lines like North Shore -- if the latter must be included at all. There are now enough approved future lines that I see now reason to include speculative unapproved lines. Do speculative unapproved lines even meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion? Mcarling (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloated number of subsections

If one may refer to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it is stated that there should be "a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming". One look at our TOC and it is clear that the "Expansion" section has just far too many subsections, with some subsections only about 50 words long. Help:Section recommends sections between 80 to 500 words long, so it seems that we are overusing subsections. My attempts to consolidate sections[1] has been undone twice[2][3]. I would greatly appreciate if contributors can explain the rational of having a subsection per railline and per rail extension.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm for merging the TSL & ERL sections until more details are revealed in future. Also, the EW & NS extensions could be merged together, since it is not a new line but additional stations to current lines. - oahiyeel talk 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:EZ-Link.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things

  1. I've reverted the Eastern Region and Thomson Lines sections. Just as we don't want it to be overly bloated, we don't want one sub-section to have just two sentences. Otherwise we might just as well fold everything into three long paragraphs for all expansions combined.
  2. Do we have a system map with Joo Koon ready for the opening date? - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Train Operation (ATO)

The article on MRT says that East-West line and North-south Line trains use ATO when this is probably not true. Any suggestions on whether it really uses manual driving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbssbs (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukit Purmei MRT Station

A user has created this article. This has never been announced and is completely unsourced and speculative. I've put it up for AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Purmei MRT Station - oahiyeel talk 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone has the MRT logo for use here?

Could someone with the skills create the MRT logo for use here and replace that public transport logo on the main MRT page?

Is there a logo for MRT in general? I thought they used the operators' logo. - oahiyeel talk 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The red MRT symbol we see on maps with a pic of a train and "MRT" beneath it. Because the island shaped logo is the general public transport logo. Would anyone have the means to create a copy of that logo? Sames goes for the LRT, the green logo. Ignoramus (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that logo was the old logo for SMRT before they even changed their name to Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Ltd. (their former name being Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC))? --A.K.R. (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (apologies, almost forgot to sign my comment)

Nono. I am not referring to the SMRT Corporation logo, which was the former "MRT" logo. Its everywhere, on maps, on signs, its the logo to the right of the sign with the station name at the entrance. ENTRANCE SIGN: PUBLIC TRANSPORT LOGO....STATION CODE.....STATION NAME....MRT LOGO

And SMRT no longer refers to Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Ltd because the co. doesnt refer to itself as that and its not registered as that. Its simply SMRT Corporation Ltd, no acronym for anything, same as SBS Transit.Ignoramus (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean this logo? http://www.publictransport.sg/public/ptp/en/Getting-Around/Map-Help/public-transport-logos/Par1/04/resized/mode_logos.png - oahiyeel talk 17:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I was hoping perhaps the creator of the MRT maps would be able to do this, if he/she has the time/resources/expertise that is of course. :) Ignoramus (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GOOD JOB, thanks!Ignoramus (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

:) - oahiyeel talk 15:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Circle Line Extension

Hey guys! I believe from the information given by LTA, and from the news I've read, they may have just quietly removed the Circle Line Extension already.

[4]

The newest map here does not have any indications whatsoever about a branch line that branches out from Promenade Station to Marina Bay. If this extension were to open in 2012 it must have indicated somewhere in the map.

[5]

This is a 2007 news and it's already considered to be old by now. DTL3 has it's completion shortened from 2018 to 2016. As I said, there's no news I can find in 2009 that indicates a Circle Line Extension from Promenade to Marina Bay.

My guess is that it's already been incorporated together with the DTL, and the >1km NSL extension.

So please remove any info about the Extension before it starts to confuse readers, and this must be acted upon before it's too late!

The Toad (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Tender for the extension had been awarded and Marina Bay CCL MRT Station is now physically under-construction. There is no official press release about the "removal" of the extension. Please do a google search and verify your guesses before coming to conclusions. [6] [7] - oahiyeel talk 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
He might be right though. [8]. No line that links from the CCL to the Marina Bay station in this pdf file. Also, take a look at this, Petir Station has been changed to Bukit Panjang. Hmm ....

218.186.10.234 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking lost page

I will link the article on the now non-existant Branch Line of mrt to the main page, and the table of links at the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolEarthHopes (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What should be apropriate sub-heading for Branch line at the footer menu. It's not really defunct, just intergrated into the nsline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolEarthHopes (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

MRT Line Map

Wouldn't it be better to use the map LTA released which officially include their future plans? http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/index_proj_maprail.htm KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

marina pier

on the new lta map, the new ns line station working name is marina pier. should't it be added to the article and the ns line article? -Ragnaroknike (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:MRT System Map 2010.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MRT System Map 2010.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:MRT system map 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MRT system map 2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


File:Singapore MRT.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Singapore MRT.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

TWE start and planned completion years

These are facts. The cited press release (citation at the end of the paragraph) includes them. If one user doesn't believe the plans are credible, that opinion is not encyclopedic. If an expert has so opined and can be cited, then that expert opinion, with a citation, could be added to the EWL article, but not here. M Carling 19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the source/reference for TWE. Plus, I found out that the construction began in May 2012 and expected to be completed in 2016. So you are right. Sni56996 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Total length

Hello, just popping in I noticed the infobox says "System length 148.9 km (92.52 mi)" and the introduction says "153.2 km (95.19 mi)". Which is correct?

₪RicknAsia₪ 05:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

North Shore Line

AFAIK the North Shore Line is still purely speculative and not announced in any formal way. If you think otherwise, please find some reliable sources. Jpatokal (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry to disturb but I love MRT I take them everyday pls delete this if official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.76.171 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The North Shore Line was actually mentioned in a Government report from the 1990s, just adding. Seloloving (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Network latest extension year

In Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Network part, the latest extension years are so far in future and does not make sense to me. Can anyone check if they are indeed intended? — Peterwhy 03:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

They refer to the latest announced extension to the line to be built in future, though I agree the section is not really needed. Seloloving (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Staffing?

Nothing about the workforce then, either in the body or the info box? Numbers, roles, grades, salaries, conditions, etc? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DTL 4 Hume

Talk:Hume MRT Station#Why do we even need this article? -115.66.225.183 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy in no. of stations

This page states that the system has 101 stations in operation, while List of Singapore MRT stations states 121. Which is correct? Citobun (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

101 is correct as you don't count interchange stations as 2 stations. 33ryantan (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Citobun (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass Rapid 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mass Rapid 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:

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) 11:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mass Rapid 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:

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) 06:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass Rapid 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:

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) 09:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 10 dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've taken this off the list of reruns for now, but please ping me, anyone, if you've got access to the sources and you've got some time to work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Unknown TEL Extension

In all LTMP 2013 Mass Rapid Transit railway line images, a Thomson-East Coast MRT Line Extension is indicated after the Sungei Bedok MRT Station that ends with an interchange with the Cross Island MRT Line at the Changi region. So far, there has not been anything mentioned about this extension. Is there anything to indicate in this article about this extension? If not, do we still need to let it stay as it is?

Cosecant57 (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can do some research on the line such as looking up at the LTA website for details. I am also a bit unsure. --LAi zhen kang (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The TEL extension is not official but possible as it will interchange with CIL and EWL if both are extended to the future Changi Airport Terminal 5. However, it is also likely that if built, the branch to T5 would be a shuttle service similar to CGL 1.02 editor (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass Rapid 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:

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) 20:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass Rapid 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:

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) 09:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Geographical layout of the MRT Network

On the East West Line of the map, 4 stations are wrongly placed which are Tiong Bahru, Redhill, Queenstown and Commonwealth. The order are as follows : (Starting from the East) Redhill, Tiong Bahru, Commonwealth , Queenstown. The correct order should be : (Starting from the East) Tiong Bahru (EW17), Redhill (EW18), Queenstown (EW19) and followed by Commonwealth (EW20). Please make a correction on that! Thank you! 02:26 , 21 January 2018 (UTC +08:00)User:Khoo_Teng_Yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoo Teng Yong (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Khoo Teng Yong, thank you for your help in spotting the error. However, the map was created and posted to Wikimedia Commons by another user, and hence needs to be edited off-wiki, unlike regular content. Thanks for your understanding. @Seloloving, I am notifing you on behalf of the above user that there is an error in the geographical map of the system that you created, and hope that you can rectify it soon. Thanks. -1.02 editor (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Holy crap, no one has noticed that for nearly a year. Thank you for pointing it out!!!! I have uploaded a new copy of the file with the amended text and am frankly embarrassed with myself for not noticing it for so long. Seloloving (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jurong Region Line Stations

Anyone knows why the stations on the JRL are not announced in 2017? Will it be announced this year? How many stations will there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoo Teng Yong (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Khoo Teng Yong: maybe you can ask KBW about that. Or maybe he too busy with MRT breakdown so they forgot. I cannot say how much as everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. Blogs and predictions are not reliable sources. (But the unreliable sources say it's about 20-25 not including WCL) 1.02 editor (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cash top-up

Regarding the addition and removal of the sentence 'cash top ups would no longer be accepted at this station from xxx' from MRT station articles, I would like to request that involved Wikipedians involved talk it out here. 1.02 editor (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As of 21 January 2018, there are 57 stations without cash top ups at passenger service centres. Singapore MRT will be fully cashless in January 2019. SBS3800P (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • None of this trivial content should be included in individual station articles, we're not a travel guide nor the place to find news bulletins relation to such. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

TEL Shell stations

Talk:Thomson–East Coast MRT line#The Shell stations Please discuss on the TEL talk page on whether we should mention this information. -115.66.196.146 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

LTMP 2040

Most of the information released in the LTMP 2040 is still too vague and lacks detailed information. Currently, there are only 2 confirmed new stations on the NSL and only 1 had a station code. A large portion of these are just plans and may not even be materialized in the future, which will fail WP:CRYSTAL. Please only add information that has a source to articles and refrain from adding detailed unsourced information until more information becomes available. Feel free to discuss further on this topic. Thanks, 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated the lead section

Hi everyone, I have improved on the lead section by rewriting and lengthening it. The last version, dated to 26th September, is as follows:

The Mass Rapid Transit, or MRT, is a rapid transit system forming the major component of the railway system in Singapore, spanning most of the city-state. The earliest section of the MRT, between Toa Payoh and Yio Chu Kang, opened on 7 November 1987. The network has since grown rapidly in accordance with Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network as the backbone of the public transport system in Singapore, with an average daily ridership of 3.501 million in 2018 (including the Light Rail Transit (LRT)), approximately 87% of the bus network's 4.037 million in the same period.

The MRT network encompasses 199.6 kilometres (124.0 mi) of route, with 119 stations in operation, on standard gauge. The fully automated North East, Circle, and Downtown lines became the longest fully automated metro network in the world in 2016, surpassing Vancouver's SkyTrain network. The lines are built by the Land Transport Authority, a statutory board of the Government of Singapore, which allocates operating concessions to the profit-based corporations, SMRT Corporation, and SBS Transit. These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus facilitating full integration of public transport services. The MRT is complemented by a small number of local LRT networks in Bukit Panjang, Sengkang, and Punggol that link MRT stations with HDB public housing estates.

The improved version is as follows:

The Mass Rapid Transit, abbreviated and referred to in local parlance as the MRT, is a heavy rail system that constitutes most of the urban and suburban rapid transit network and the wider railway network in Singapore, spanning most of the city-state's main island. The earliest section of the MRT, between Toa Payoh and Yio Chu Kang, opened on 7 November 1987. The network has since grown rapidly in accordance with Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network as the backbone of the public transport system in Singapore, with an average daily ridership of 3.3 million in 2018, approximately 87% of the bus network's 4.037 million in the same period.

Singapore's MRT infrastructure is built, operated, and managed in accordance with a quasi-nationalised operating framework, in which the lines are constructed and the assets owned by the Land Transport Authority, a statutory board of the Government of Singapore. The Land Transport Authority allocates operating concessions to for-profit corporations, namely SMRT Corporation and SBS Transit. These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus facilitating the full integration of public transport services.

As of September 2019, the MRT network encompasses 199.6 kilometres (124.0 mi) of route on standard gauge, with 119 stations in operation, spread across 5 lines. The network is expected to encompass almost 400 kilometres (250 mi) of route by 2040 as a result of ongoing expansion works and the construction of new lines. The combined lengths of the fully-automated North East, Circle, and Downtown lines, as well as the upcoming Thomson-East Coast, Jurong Region, and Cross Island lines, confers upon the MRT the distinction of being the metro system with the world's longest fully-automated network. The MRT is complemented by a small number of local Light Rail Transit (LRT) networks in the townships of Bukit Panjang, Sengkang, and Punggol that link MRT stations with HDB public housing estates, bringing the combined length of the domestic heavy and light rail network to 228.2 kilometres (141.8 mi) with 156 stations in operation.

I hope you like it. Kindly let me know if you have any suggestions as to how it might be further improved. If you would like to read the three notes in the new lead section, check them out on the article page, as I am not sure how to reproduce them here.

Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: Good work! It's mostly fine. Just change "encompass almost 400km of route by 2040" to "expand to a total length of 400km by 2040" and for the first paragraph, I believe that it would be better written as "The first section of the network opened in November 1987 and it has since grown rapidly in accordance with (same as above)". R22-3877 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tiger7253: Looks good but i dont think the MRT is heavy rail. Heavy rail is more of KTM type and the MRT is more of rapid transit instead. I have removed the part which mentions this. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@1.02 editor: For rapid transit, MRT and other metro/subway systems around the world are classified as heavy rail and rapid transit, as per the definition in this document [9] R22-3877 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also in addition to that is note 1 really necessary? it sounds like it belongs more on the rail transport in singapore article.1.02 editor (T/C) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@1.02 editor: Hi, thanks for your edit, but the MRT is indeed a heavy rail system in accordance with the PDF file provided by R22-3877 (talk · contribs). The term 'heavy rail' is in reference to the type of rolling stock and track used (eg: steel-wheeled electric-powered vehicles that are grade-separated), regardless of the nomenclature of the system (eg: rapid transit/commuter rail/high speed rail). I shall thus be reverting your edit.
With regards to note 1, I added it because I am of the opinion that it is necessary in Singapore's rather aberrant case in order to prevent ambiguity. In large and medium-sized countries, the average person is more than capable of distinguishing between the railway network "proper" (intercity rail lines) and city-specific rapid transit systems, because the former links cities whilst the latter are confined to the cities. This eliminates ambiguity and thus eliminates the need for note 1 on an article about the Shanghai metro or London underground. Singapore, on the other hand, is... aberrant, and not easily classifiable. For one, it is the only compact city-state in the world with a comprehensive heavy rail network, and is the only country in the world where the absolute majority of its heavy railway network "proper" is classified as city-specific rapid transit. Secondly, when the JB-SG RTS is built, it will additionally be one of the few cities in the world to have more than one rapid transit system falling within its boundaries, and will also be the only city and indeed country in the world to have a cross-border connection to another country that is not classified as 'regular' rail, but instead rapid transit.
I hope you can see where I am going with this. In short, Singapore's nature as a sovereign city-state with two distinct rapid transit systems and two other railway systems means that definitions that are readily applicable to large countries can get a bit warped when used in reference to Singapore, which has an aberrant (or unique) railway composition, making an understanding of its railway network highly prone to ambiguity and confusion, hence my inclusion of the note.
@R22-3877: Also, I just made the edits you specified. Cheers. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As much as I would like to have the RTS going, but with the constant delays from Malaysia's government, I wonder if this will end up being WP:CRYSTAL. That being said, I do get your points here. Cheers! robertsky (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: Pity about the thumb-twiddling from our neighbours. I shall remove all references to a second RTS if the project indeed does get shelved, but since it has been put on hold, for the time being, I shall retain the reference to it whilst explicitly specifying that it is a 'planned' system. Tiger7253 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Naming of lines

May I know if there was a community consensus to rename all the lines with a lower case "l"? Officially, LTA capitalizes the "l" in the name of the line. There doesn't seem to be a standard enforced across all the page and it would be good if we can standardize this.Seloloving (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Seloloving: there has been a discussion at Talk:Aljunied MRT station which resulted in the s in station being lowercased but i am not sure if it covers the lines. 1.02 editor (T/C) 15:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it covers the lines. I am heavily recommending to revert the format to a capitalized "L" as per LTA official name for the lines. Seloloving (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Seloloving: For the LRT lines, there was a discussion at Talk:Sengkang LRT line, but the other lines were moved without consensus at about the same time. R22-3877 (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
All the more reason I think we should revert back to a capital L for the name of the lines, I think. Is it possible to open up a vote on this matter? Seloloving (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's follow the LTA format. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Could I gather more support for the proposal to revert to renaming our lines with the Capital L? Wiki discourages consensus votes if we can reach a consensus without it, according to their guidelines. If so, we could ask the relevant admins to shift the pages again. Seloloving (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll support, but only for the MRT lines. LRT lines remain as they are. R22-3877 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I would say rename all pages with 'line' to capital L. If there are not enough supporters for the LRT renaming, then we stick to only renaming the MRT pages. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
No objections to keeping the small "l" for the LRT lines, especially since LTA and SBS calls them Sengkang LRT and Punggol LRT without the "line". If there is no further opposition, I will be renaming all the MRT lines by today. Would appreciate assistance to assist in this across all the pages. Will look into moving the pages when I have the time. Seloloving (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I will start moving the pages. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: Guys, I have an issue. The EWL move seems to be blocked. Is anyone able to help? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Please hold off. Per MOS:CAPS, we would only cap line if it's part of a proper name as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources. For rail lines in most countries, we use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The Land Transport Authority[1], the operators SBS Transit[2] and SMRT[3], with the local media in Singapore such as the Straits Times[4] or Channel News Asia[5], consistently capitalize the L in the name of the line.Seloloving (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/map/train.html
  2. ^ https://www.sbstransit.com.sg/first-train-last-train
  3. ^ http://www.smrt.com.sg/Announcements/articleid/1220
  4. ^ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/extended-train-and-bus-hours-on-dec-31
  5. ^ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/mrt-north-south-line-train-delay-smrt-signalling-fault-12186480
Most of those never even use line names in sentences, so provide no help in deciding whether that source would treat them as proper names. Phrases like "Downtown Line First and Last Train Timings" do not imply that they think any of those words are part of some proper name. Yes, some official sites do cap Line in sentences, but the test in MOS:CAPS is more about independent sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Three out of the five links capitalized the L in sentences, two which are reputable news sites which are commonly used as a source reference. May I know what else can I cite if not news sources? Seloloving (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course you can cite them all. But MOS:CAPS is about consistent capitalization in sources, so you'd need to at least look at how often other sources use lowercase (e.g. this book). And if you decide that North South Line is consistently capped thus, then you can propose to move the article to that. But you can't use that to move it to North South MRT Line, where MRT line is the more appropriate case for the generic part there; i.e. the current article suggests it's an MRT line named North South. If this is not the best title, let's talk about what is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
After searching for various names of the lines, I find no majority on whether the L is capitalized in the books with varying amounts depending on the name searched. The book you have linked even uses both "line and "Line" within the same sentence (The 2005 map illustrates this as well as the North South line's links with (1) the East West Line, (2) the North East line...). As such, I do not think the books can serve as a reliable indicator on the issue.
I would deem it of greater importance that the official operators of the lines, together with the transport authority, with even international news sources (this article even compares the Singapore "North-South Line" with Hong Kong's "East Rail line"), consistently capitalize the L. In addition, with LTA's tendency to abbreviate the lines into 3 letter codes (NSL, NEL, EWL...), it would be jarring to capitalize the L in the code but not its full name. Seloloving (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I would support moving the articles to 'North South Line', 'East West Line', etc., with (Singapore MRT) used for disambiguation if required. With the current name format, sources (e.g [10],[11],[12]) lean towards a lowercase L. R22-3877 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I think what I have observed is that North South Line and North South MRT line is both correct while North South line and North South MRT Line is wrong. North South Line denotes the proper name of the rail line while North South MRT line implies that the rail line is part of a MRT system, justifying a lower case. It's the same context where I would refer to a single line as North South Line (ie, referring to its proper name) but use North South, East West and Downtown lines, implying it's part of a network of lines. I am honestly neutral with regards to the title of the article, but I still believe that within the article itself, we should call it by its most recognizable format which is propagated by the various official channels and media. Seloloving (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A multi-RM or an RFC on a naming convention change would be in order if you want to propose a change. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Would using a capital L in a title or sidebar but a small l in sentences be a compromise? As you mentioned, standalone titles are typically capitalized. Seloloving (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Wherever it occurs, the capitalization needs to be justified by "consistent capitalization in sources". I'm not convinced the names are consistently capitalized even without the MRT in there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I had already posted numerous sources consistently capitalizing the L in "Line" and some using a small letter when calling it a "MRT line", with even the SCMP article comparing the "North-South Line" and "East Rail line". Even the manufacturers of the trains capitalizes the L when referring to it without "MRT" or "Metro". I do believe the book sources have no consistency as they vary too widely and to my knowledge, are not very well known unless specifically searched for due to niche interests in mapping or railways. I am not trying enforce the usage of official names, but to use the name in a format which is most widely recognized and widely used by contractors, operators, regulators, local and even international media. Another closely related rail network which consistently capitalizes the L is Malaysia's Klang Valley Integrated Transit System. Seloloving (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
True. The official names by LTA capitalises the L. I have seen it in the MRT stations. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Capitalization on signage, in headings, etc., has no bearing on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The articles I cite don't just capitalize them in titles and headings, but in full sentences within paragraphs. Seloloving (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Some do. What did you mean by "I have seen it in the MRT stations."? Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not type that. It was another commentator. I think he was referring to the signage within the stations that capitalized the "L", which wasn't my point. I am trying to say that the capitalized L is integral to the most widely used format internationally. I also believe all the articles I cited use a capital L in the name, with the exception of one which calls it the "North East metro line", but still referring to "Circle Line" within the same article, without the MRT, or Metro prefix. Happy New Year to you. Seloloving (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, I didn't notice that you jumped in after my reply to TheGreatSG'rean about the signage. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, I thought you were replying to both comments together when you said "in headings" in reference to the articles I linked. Seloloving (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Article cleanup and rewrite

There are several issues I have noted regarding the article, which in my opinion has fallen below the "Best Article" ranking. I would like to propose several ideas we can implement over the coming months.

1. History section is nothing but a list of commencement dates, with little to no information on the planning phase of the earlier years and information on later lines. Though there is a larger article dedicated to it, I feel we could include a condensed version or summary for the main page here. This will bring it in line with other Metro pages. I have tried expanding on the initial years with a map and details on its progression and opening, but am gradually hoping to include 3 subsections after that, one for every decade since.

2. Downtown Line is now fully completed, with the next extension nearly 4 years away. The bulk of it should be removed from Expansion and folded into the revamped History section, with the DTL3e being shifted below the TEL's section.

3. The Rolling Stock table is getting really large and unwieldy and will only get progressively larger. Are we able to explore adopting the format by the Paris Metro or Beijing Subway where we can include one photo of the latest train stock for every line? The table can be kept, but with unnecessary details like the price of trains or technical details like speed limit or power supply removed for the purposes of this article.

4. Do we need to adopt LTA's colour scheme for the colour coding of tables, with even the black text on darker colours? what's the point of that - what more across three tables (current lines, signalling and expansion). I feel we could either adopt Hong Kong's MTR format, with just a small box at the corner. So all text should be in one colour for consistency.

5. We still have not reached a consensus on whether to capitalize the L. I would like to point out that my case to support the capitalization of the L is due to the pervasiveness of online sources to do it in media, press releases and even articles featured abroad, and not just because it's done so in signage. The word "Line" is inherently a crucial part of its name. North South MRT line is correct as it describes the railway as a line. But North South Line is the name of the line, not North South, North-South, or North South MRT line. Due to how common a "north south" line is, I would recommend keeping the title of the pages as it currently is, but using all caps when mentioned within the article itself.

Would love to know the opinions of the community. Seloloving (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

For factor 1, we can split the history into the initial and subsequent stages, with a map in the subsequent stages showing which sections opened and on which day. For point 2, once the full initial line is completed, we can remove the paragraph on initial openings. As for number 3, we can have the latest photos, but keep the technical details. For number 4, we should still stick to a block colour instead of a colour line, in other words, LTA format. For 5, I would advocate capitalising the L. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I will address each point singularly.
1. So would you support my proposal to split the article into 4 subsections, one for every decade hence? I do think that would be the best way to present its history.
2. Downtown Line is already fully opened with its planned initial stages. DTL3e isn't Stage 4, but merely an extension to 3.
3. My immediate concern is to reduce the size of the table and shift the bulk of the information to the main Rolling Stock article which I feel you have not fully addressed. The table is going to grow substantially and I think we need to find a solution we can present information in a more efficient and concise form without it becoming bigger than the subsection's summary itself.
4. My primary motive is to reduce the amount of unnecessary colour in the tables. I don't think we should follow LTA's colour formatting as it's only used in signages which also relate to the capitalization issue. For example, is there a need to use LTA's template in this occurrence to present information when Paris, Moscow, Tokyo and Seoul and Hong Kong simply dedicates a small box to the colour? Should we cite Chinese metros, how about doing so with only the text highlighted instead of the entire box, like Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou?
5. With regards to the naming of the lines, I had noted Dicklyon's point that the L isn't commonly capitalized in sources and that Wikipedia is not obliged to use an official name. I would like to point out however, that advocating for it should not include the citing of signage, but sources. Most online sources, however are generally consistent when referring to the lines with a L when referring to it without the MRT/Metro prefix. Published books sources do not generally choose one or the other, with some using both. Since the online sources are generally more accessible to a enthusiast looking up on the pages, I would argue a slight bias should be given to the it compared to book sources which are sometimes not even wholly accessible online.
Seloloving (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I also want to ask for a request for suitable up to date images and photographs to be provided on aspects such as the signalling used (can be the signal lights, the antenna poles or the VOBC compartment on the ends of the trains), any clear photos of the work trains such as railgrinders, track tampers and locomotives used for maintenance trains. SBS9834C (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Also paging for adding photos of the exterior of the C751C and C830C into Wikimedia Commons there isn't any good photos of these three train types. SBS9834C (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello SBS9834C, thank you for joining the discussion. Unfortunately, the things you have requested are not easy to get if you are not an approved staff of the operators or authority and would go beyond the scope of the subsection itself. I must admit I am not exactly qualified to answer this and would request and encourage you to start a new discussion below mine. Would you have any things to add about the 5 points I have brought up? Seloloving (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Seloloving, thanks for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I would just like to preface by saying just how well-done I think your maps are. The map you created for the TEL is particularly exemplary - the use of squares, trapezoids, and other polygons to demarcate the various stages of the line is quite creative.
Where point 3 is concerned, I pre-empted this a couple of months back by creating a separate article for rolling stock (Singapore MRT and LRT rolling stock) in order to include more detail (and yes, pictures are included). I think we should delegate the use of pictures to the standalone article in order to avoid clogging up the main MRT article. I also went on to create another standalone article for the various lines of the MRT and LRT network, which is currently in draftspace as I do not have the time at present to make the comprehensive edits necessary to get it to publication.
I shall address your other points later this week when I am able. Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed this discussion, but I will also like to suggest that we do a collage for the lead image (in the infobox) for the MRT. Take this one for example for the Moscow metro. I also hope to get to visit Kim Chuan Depot and Sengkang Depot to take photos of the requested rolling stock; I am not sure how to enter these though.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if you all want to also beef up the History page of the MRT (note page not section), I suggest checking the sources with the infopedia page that allows us to gather the sources quickly for the uncited parts of that article.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, thanks to the generous contributions you have made on Wikimedia Commons, I was able to find more suitable images for my earlier requests. Thanks so much! SBS9834C (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 measures under 'safety' section?

Hello. I wonder if writing about the COVID-19 measures on public transport will be relevant under the 'Safety' section.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is possible, though we will need to get photos of the labels and a empty train asap before the CB ends. Seloloving (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New article for rolling stock created

Hi again,

I have created a new article that documents the rolling stock of the MRT and LRT network. The name of the article is Singapore MRT and LRT rolling stock, and I took inspiration for the name and the general layout from the London Underground rolling stock and New York City Subway rolling stock articles. Considering the rapid expansion of our MRT network and the acquisition of new trains, I reckon a rolling stock-specific article is long overdue. Also, having an article allows for the inclusion of more information fields that would otherwise excessively lengthen the main MRT page, like images, date of retirement, and so on.

The article is a stub, for now, so I look forward to the community's help in expanding it along the lines of the articles for the London and NY networks. I also have an issue with the tables that I cannot seem to resolve, so I would appreciate some help with that. Because the EWL and the Punggol LRT lines share rolling stock with the NSL and Sengkang LRT lines, respectively, I have to reflect this in the 'lines' column, but I cannot seem to figure out the appropriate rowspan HTML attribute for this particular column. Making this attribute reflect in the other fields is easy, but in the case of this particular field it is quite confounding.

Also, if anyone has access to royalty-free images for the rolling stock that do not yet have an image, kindly upload them to Wikimedia Commons so that they might be added to the tables.

Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a new section on a article Ilovecats817 (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

On station articles...

Since we are talking about station infobox cleanups, I thought of also stating the standards of what should be in the MRT articles:

History

  • Try to state when the station was first announced.
  • Use Web Archive Singapore to track down contract details of the station and associated tunnels. The WAS has archives of the old LTA website which detailed the construction of the CCL and the DTL. For the stations of the original phases on the EWL and NSL, it may be possible to look through NewspaperSG for articles on the awarded contracts. For more recent stations like those on the TEL and JRL, you can find the official news release in the LTA Press Room.
    • Also additional note, WAB may be prone to viruses and stuff, hence sometimes the archived pages may be taken down by accident.
    • Contracts description, as suggested by @Dayton12345::
Contract <Number> for the design and construction of <station name> and <length (optional)> associated tunnels/bridges was awarded to <company name> at a sum of S$xxx million (convert this value also to USD) in <month-year>. Construction will start in <year>, with completion in <year>.
  • State the station opening, backed by reliable sources. (Straits Times, LTA etc)
  • Add in any notable incidences, especially train breakdowns or the occasional tunnel flooding or collision (let's hope not to have another one!)
  • If possible detail any upgrades of the station (additional lifts, bicycle facilities etc), backed by reliable sources.

Station details

  • Mention the position of the station (e.g. on the XX line between the Y and Z stations). Train intervals are optional (as it may sound like a guide), though has been mentioned on some London Underground stations, such as this and this. Cite the MRT system map on this.
  • In addition, also add the station code for the station, also citing above source.
  • Emphasising that Wikipedia is not a guide, please do not add station layouts and platforms. Yes, I know stations of the NYC Subway does this, as well as those on the HK MTR, but it is more appropriate for the former (so far) due to their complex track layouts. For the latter, it should be gradually phased out as it isn't helpful.
    • Occasionally route diagrams are helpful, but this is optional unless it helps the article. @Pentagon 2057: has been also experimenting on them, but more help is needed on this. Tests has been done on the Changi Airport, City Hall and Raffles Place station. So far, there are already templates here and here to cover most stations.
  • Also do not add bus services and stops that serve the station. Not necessary (see above point).
  • Sometimes LTA and other sources may also talk about the station designs and the architecture. You can also research a bit more on the various station designs as well, if possible. Examples include Canberra, Marina Bay and Changi Airport.
    • Citing appropriate books and sources, also briefly mention about barrier-free access if necessary.
  • The newer stations, from the NEL onwards, will have artworks displayed in them. There is an LTA website dedicated to the descriptions of each artwork here, and also one on the SBS transit website here.

Other notes

  • Always, as much as possible, quote reliable resources by LTA, the operators (SMRT and SBS) and the Ministry of Transport. It is also encouraged to follow LTA on Instagram or other social media platforms to catch up on any MRT updates. Do not use Land Transport Guru or SGTrains as sources, as they are more of secondary and user-based blogs. You can also try to ask them on where they get their information from if you like.
  • Try not to clutter up the article with too many images. Under the section 'external links', add * {{commonscat-inline|XX MRT Station}} ('station' must be capitalised) to link to other images.
  • You can look at past GA reviews on the Canberra, Marina Bay and Changi Airport stations to see on how they are being accessed to be promoted to GAs. You can also check other system's stations that are GA-quality as well for examples to improve the articles.

--ZKang123 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Replies and feedback

@ZKang123: For the contracts section, could 'The Contract <Number>' be changed to 'Contract <number>' or 'the contract' instead? I find it flows better with the latter phrasing. R22-3877 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not too sure. I prefer to keep the contract code.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Infomap on all station articles

This is not strictly related to this article, but it's a main HQ in a way for all the Singapore MRT pages.

Can I recommend that all station pages use this image instead, in line with the Hong Kong MTR stations. I can't keep uploading and updating every combination of every interchange forever.

Option 1 - All stations to use that image. Option 2 - Only interchange stations use that image.

Pinging prominent editors @Cosecant57 @ZKang123 @TheGreatSG'rean @Tiger7253 @R22-3877 Seloloving (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose that if there are no votes against Option 1 by 1 June, we can commence shifting over to the image with all lines on it. Thanks for voting everyone. Seloloving (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Tbh I will prefer separate maps for MRT and LRT stations, except for those MRT/LRT interchange stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I think those can be arranged, as the LRTs are limited. Question is do we have 3 maps for each LRT, or 1 ? Seloloving (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Separate will be recommended.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, please take a look at User:Seloloving/sandbox for the new template I am advocating for all MRT/LRT pages so as to standardize the formatting of the infoboxes across every station. I am aware this is a massive undertaking. In short, instead of painstakingly getting the x and y coordinates for every station, you just need to insert the coordinates and it will automatically be mapped to the info map. As for the LRT problem, I am trying to trial out a new map fairly soon. Please provide your feedback, thank you. Seloloving (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes it looks good so far. I like it.
Anyway, its partly thanks to 1.02 editor (oh wait he's Pentagon 2057 now), who helped revamped the Canberra page on the advice of a reviewer at the time. Other notes include changing the description from [[rapid transit]] to [[Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)|Mass Rapid Transit]].--ZKang123 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I see. In any case, I am unable to load a second map after the first has been invoked. May I suggest we proceed with the revamping, including the LRT pages (for the general location within Singapore), until we figure out how to load a second image? You can find the new LRT route maps on my page if you manage to figure out a solution. We will need to rope in other editors though, as it's a very big job. A lot of the station infoboxes are quite messed up at the moment.
Also, I removed the code column within the infobox, as I don't deem it necessary to show it again as it's displayed prominently on top. May I know your take on this? Seloloving (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I dont get what you are saying in the first paragraph? What two images? For the LRT stations?--ZKang123 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was hoping to display the first map to indicate its location within Singapore like other stations, and a second map below it for its location on the LRT route. A geographical LRT map doesn't make sense as without the buildings and roads, the LRT is just travelling around an empty white map. Seloloving (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey, been replacing a few stations (check my contributions). The problem now is the points seem to be off, like its to the left of where the station is supposed to be? Can check what is the problem?--ZKang123 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh wait realised the problem. Now rectifying my own mistake hehe.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the trials, I think it is working fine, any inaccuracies would most likely be due to my map not aligning properly with the coordinates, so that would be on my end, so I would need feedback on any blatant misalignments. I am also sort of hoping of cleaning up the infoboxes of many stations, due to discrepancies in the code and untidiness in general. Do you know any other active contributors who would be willing to assist in this whole process?Seloloving (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not totally sure, but I can ask @Pentagon 2057: and @TheGreatSG'rean: on this. But they may be busy though.
What are some things specifically that needs to be cleaned up for the infoboxes? I know removing the extra station codes is one. What else?--ZKang123 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have not been active much recently but if you need my help i can spare some time around here. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 07:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I have seen the map. It needs to be updated with the recent Cross Island line extension to Punggol. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, the CRL-PE route has not been officially released. I have arranged a meeting with a LTA representative and going down to the HQ soon to see it. Standby for updates on that front. As for the coding, I think it's fine. Standby too, sorry I have been and will be busy for a while. Seloloving (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooh nice. I should actually ask LTA one day on the breakdown of the lines and stations ridership. There's quite a lot of things I will like to ask LTA, but getting the breakdown will be very helpful and a significant step. And also probably an 'official' description of the various lines and its alignment.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Seloloving:. Trying out a few more. I find that for stations closer to the central area, like for the Dhoby Ghaut and Pasir Panjang stations, the map becomes more messy as the name blocks the other surrounding lines out. I hope if its possible to have a close up shot of the central area lol.
In fact, if you look at some London Underground stations, like Earl's Court or High Street Kensington stations, they focus more on Central London, where they are.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Point noted, I will see what I can do. Seloloving (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@TheGreatSG'rean I have added CRL PE into the map. Seloloving (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@ZKang123 I have added a city area map. See Dhoby Ghaut. Please suggest further room for improvement too. Seloloving (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The city map looks kind of great, but maybe if you like, you can zone out the Central Area? I also feel the lines could also be thinner.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Interesting point to zone out the central area, but I am unable to find any commonly used boundaries to denote it actually..., the closest one can find is the "Central Region". I will also make the lines thinner in the next iteration. Seloloving (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Holiday-themed trains

Thought of writing this section, though I am unsure where should I put this under which section:

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) commemorates local festivities and holidays with festive-themed trains and decorating some of the station platforms with the respective themes. Examples include Lunar New Year, National Day, Christmas, Hari Raya and Deepavali.[1][2][3][4][5]

Still in progress. Anyone else can help expand this.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NDP-themed MRT trains to celebrate Singapore's 54th birthday". CNA. 17 July 2019. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  2. ^ "Get patriotic on board NDP-themed trains". The Straits Times. 11 July 2019. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  3. ^ "News Room - News Releases - Factsheet: Revel in Festive Hari Raya Decorations on Public Transport!". LTA. 8 June 2018. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  4. ^ "News Room - News Releases - Factsheet: Creating Better Public Transport Journeys for a People-Centred Transport System". LTA. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  5. ^ "News Room - News Releases - Factsheet: Soak in the Lunar New Year Festivities on Public Transport!". LTA. 3 February 2018. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
I am not exactly sure how relevant this is - isn't this done by many other metros also for their local festivities? Seloloving (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)/Archive_3&oldid=1085917227"