Talk:South Island line

What should this article be about?

@Sameboat, Akc1902, Epicgenius, Marxistfounder, and Citobun: Should this article be about (a) both the east and west sections of the South Island Line as a whole, or about (b) the South Island Line (East), which will be referred to as the "South Island Line" by the MTRC when it opens? (I'd prefer (b), especially given that the WIL is now being referred to as the Island Line Extension to Western District; maybe they want to transfer the name to SIL(W).) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peterwhy: The whole thing has become ridiculous since Akc1902's involvement in MTR topics. The lime line which terminates at South Horizons has its qualifier of "East" officially removed from its name[1]. The whole content of this east section should remain in this "main article" (without disambiguation identifier) instead of moving to the one with "East" identifier. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

After the east section opens this year or next, I suppose the east section (only) will be what people usually think of as "South Island Line", and this RDT change back in June seems to support a more specific SIL page that means SIL(E). So I prefer proposal (b), but to maintain correct page names, I am also fine that (c) South Island Line becomes a plain disambiguation page and its content are moved to South Island Line (East).

What we should also consider is, are the existing historical proposal sections too detailed to be included in the eventual completed SIL page? Do we need a common page, that should not be called South Island Line in my opinion, that holds some common planning details for east and west sections? — Peterwhy 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peterwhy: IMHO sections 2–4 are overly long-winded and could probably be summarised into two to four paragraphs plus a station listing table like Sha Tin to Central Link's (most of the Project Detail section could be thrown out because most of it is no longer relevant anyway); this could be included in both SIL and SIL(W) articles (with different tables for each article). The article's obviously been stagnant for a very long time (see § Deferral of the scheme) and could use some rewriting. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We can move the long planning history of both sections to history of South Island Line so we don't need to resort to an article title (South Island Line (East)) which has been made obsolete by thd MTR. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Question: Are these being treated as two lines, or one line with two segments? If it's two lines, we can split them into three articles. Otherwise, we keep this as one article. epicgenius - (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you define a line? Operationally, I have not heard of plans to provide through and/or branched service on these two sections anymore. Even if there are, since the west section will complete years after the east counterpart, it would have a Wikipedia page at least as a future extension. Compare with Kwun Tong Line Extension, Kowloon Southern Link and West Island Line, which are more than a single-station extension and each has a page.

So in my opinion, there should be at least two pages for two sections; for whether South Island Line is the same as South Island Line (East), currently and officially it is not, but they could be in the short future as hinted by the link from Sameboat above. I have no source for this, and so I also proposed to have two pages (east and west) and a disambiguation page above. — Peterwhy 18:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The photo from hkitalk which showed the signage of "South Island Line" without the "East" qualifier at Admiralty Station is dead, but the official site itself is a reliable source to prove that this is the case. If there is content to be split from this article title, it should be the planning history which intertwines both East and West sections inevitably. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the South Island Line page should be a page with the proposals and the map of both the SIL East and West. There is already a South Island Line (East) page separately for when the line actually opens. Therefore this page should not be for the East section, but for both the East and West. Akc1902 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with South Island Line (East)

(Continuing above discussion; pinging Sameboat, Peterwhy, Epicgenius, Akc1902.) While this article needs some restructuring to begin with (and contains some outdated information), the line opening at the end of this year will be called "South Island Line", and adding "(East)" while it's not called that would be rather confusing. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is supposed to be a vote section, but Twinkle doesn't really make that clear. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• While I support the merge from the one with disambiguation qualifier to this one, I would rather wait for the eventual inauguration of South Island Line. So by the time there will be loads of evidences that the article title of this line should not contain the disambiguation qualifier "East" and more non-Hongkonger Wikipedians will understand the issue better and support the merger. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• I support splitting the SIL (W) and SIL (E) articles at some point, but would rather prefer to wait until the SIL (W) is under construction to split the SIL (W) article. For now, it should be one article about the SIL. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• I support splitting the SIL (W) to a separate article, because SIL (W) is unlikely to be the SIL that people refer to after the E is opened, in my opinion. Waiting until W begins construction is not necessary, as we already have articles for many proposed MTR lines in the same or earlier railway strategy report. In my opinion, after SIL is confirmed to have two different service "lines", (unlike the earliest proposal from Admiralty to HKU or Sai Ying Pun via Wong Chuk Hang,) I think the SIL article should be split to two eventually. Of course, whether MTR will call the E simply SIL, and whether permanently or temporarily until W is completed, will complicate the discussion. — Peterwhy 20:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: looking at these two links from MTR: [2] and [3], it is convincing to me that SIL (E) will simply be SIL upon opening. So I still support merging the newly created SIL (E) page to SIL, and splitting what belongs to the proposed SIL (W) to its own page. — Peterwhy 23:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• A merge definitely makes sense at this point. The new line is named the South Island Line. I also like User:Sameboat's suggestion of creating a separate History of South Island Line or Proposals for South Island Line to declutter this article. Then you'd end up with three articles:

1. South Island Line, focusing on the actual construction of the line which opens this month, list of stations, rolling stock etc
2. History of South Island Line, with maps of the previous proposals, etc
3. South Island Line (West) for the future line (which I think there is a significant chance the MTR will end up renaming in the next five years).

Matthewmayer (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Should we move the current South Island Line to become the history/proposal page, and move the current South Island Line (East) to South Island Line? This should preserve both page histories the most. And in case no one noticed, the original West Island Line and South Island Line page still exists, currently as a disambiguation page, if anyone thinks the history of the two three lines is too intertwined. — Peterwhy 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems logical to me! I think Proposals for... Is probably a better name for the article. I think you could go ahead and start moving things around unless there are any strong objections. Matthewmayer (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peterwhy and Matthewmayer: I think titling it "History of the South Island Line and [West Island Line/Island Line western extension]" might be better, as the 2003 alignments merge the WIL and the SIL(W). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jc86035: seems logical, we could also then merge/redirect West Island Line and South Island Line there Matthewmayer (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Peterwhy: Although i think if we move South Island Line to History of the South Island Line and West Island Line then we will need an administrator's help to do the second move from South Island Line (East) to South Island Line as there will be a redirect page in place at South Island Line. Matthewmayer (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Matthewmayer: I am not the admin you are looking for either :) — Peterwhy 22:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Epicgenius, what do you think about the split of the history/proposal sections, and can you help with moving page without leaving redirects? — Peterwhy 22:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Peterwhy: Yeah, I think the article on the South Island Line should be split accordingly. I could help moving the pages without redirect. Where is the history and proposal section of the South Island Line article supposed to be moved to? epicgenius (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: to History of the South Island Line and West Island Line Matthewmayer (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Matthewmayer: I understand that, and I'll move it accordingly by tomorrow (in my time zone—it's already December 12 in HK). @Peterwhy and Jc86035: What happens to the article South Island Line and West Island Line, which is a disambiguation page? epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC) @Matthewmayer, Peterwhy, and Jc86035: Re-pinging.
        • @Epicgenius: After some thinking, I propose that West Island Line and South Island Line be kept unchanged, and eventually be deleted after extracting useful information (if any) from its outdated history. Or eventually redirect that page to the new history page. I don't see how visitors would accidentally arrive at that page anyway. — Peterwhy 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
          • @Peterwhy: Right, there are no inbound links from actual articles to West Island Line and South Island Line so that article is very low-priority Matthewmayer (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
            • @Peterwhy and Epicgenius: In the interests of getting this article polished by the opening date of the new line, i decided to be WP:BOLD and create the new article. So I've extracted history information into History_of_the_South_Island_Line_and_West_Island_Line, made this article only about the line which will open in December, and redirected South Island Line (East) here. Matthewmayer (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Looks good to me. (I hadn't moved the page yet because I was still deciding which page would keep the article history.) But the new article about the line's history looks like a good solution to that mess. epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Disneyland Resort Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)