Talk:MTR
Attention needed (65)
 | MTR is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 11, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Spinning off the section Modified Initial System according to summary style
The previous edits to spin off #Modified Initial System as its own article (and to expand with more, encyclopaedic details; considering the length of this main article, and, the existing practice for other sections) and to downsize that section according to summary style had met with unexplained edit warring and extensive simple vandalism/overdone reverts by Citobun, among others. No discussion had ever been launched on either talk pages (neither here nor Talk:Modified Initial System). Please state here your concern and valid reason to oppose such an operation, if there's any. Otherwise Wikipedia:BOLD will be adhered to and all such disruptive edits will be reported. Thanks. 219.73.29.243 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't carry out any vandalism. Please do not make false accusations. I don't think splitting off Modified Initial System is necessary unless you intend to significantly expand the coverage of that subject. Secondly you need to stop adding links to a so-called "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" unless you can provide evidence that this is a well-established name, as I have asked of you repeatedly – per WP:BURDEN. I also don't understand why you keep adding circular redirects to this nonexistent article. Citobun (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW I already suggested the alternative names "Tsuen Wan Line immersed tube" or "Modified Initial System immersed tube" since "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" is not an official name nor is it widely used. It also looks clumsy and ungrammatical. Citobun (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would concur but these are like neologisms invented by the Wikipedian community. The existing name appears at least in scholastic publications. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Citobun: These names don't exist anywhere else apart from this talk page. 203.218.155.184 (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Citobun: Where have you been? 203.218.155.184 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Where did you find these names? 220.246.91.139 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I went through the edit history and found that you actually did.[1] Meanwhile that article on the MIS has been expanded quite considerably and I would suppose you too would consider it necessary to have a separate article on that, given your precondition has been fulfilled. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given your precondition has been fulfilled there's so far clear consensus to spin off the section. On the other hand it isn't uncommon for former lines of rapid transit system to have their own articles, e.g., Branch MRT Line of Singapore, the District Railway in London or the IRT Trunk Line and the Fulton Street Line in the NYC. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I found no reason that this shouldn't be carried out. The name of that tunnel isn't quite a relevant point and should be settled separately. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Go to an appropriate venue to discuss the naming issue around the article for that immersed tube tunnel. Its name got nothing directly to do with whether the MIS section warrants a split. Meanwhile would anyone request to unprotect that page? 203.218.155.184 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is this getting anywhere? 203.218.155.184 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop jumping from IP to IP, it makes this discussion extremely hard to follow and probably constitutes Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Citobun (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The expanded article
Now that while there's no longer by logical deduction any opposition towards spinning off the section MTR § MIS and given the spun-off article[2] has been considerably expanded[3] JalenFolf has gone way further to argue not even the redirect is printworthy and removed the R with possibilities tag.[4] The page has also been locked[5] upon their request.[6] They've also proceeded to de-link the redirect to the article section MTR § MIS from as many as ten articles[7] which amounted to disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The question would be that whether such disruptions (including, but not limited to Citobun's blanket reverts mentioned above)[8] should be tolerated, and whether the new materials in the expanded article should be incorporated for the being under the MTR § MIS section or should that expanded article be restored. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I did wonder why JalenFolf had removed the link to the MIS section of the MTR article from the Wilfrid Newton article. Also 124.217.188.171, I recommend you sign up for an actual wikipedia account. Turini2 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are those edits reverted already? 203.218.155.184 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop jumping from IP to IP, it makes this discussion extremely hard to follow and probably constitutes Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Citobun (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? 203.218.155.184 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop jumping from IP to IP, it makes this discussion extremely hard to follow and probably constitutes Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Citobun (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply counterproductive. The content of the enriched article isn't incorporated anywhere. It's like simply scraped. 220.246.91.139 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cant agree more. 203.218.155.184 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
.svg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
"Rail Merger" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Rail Merger has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24 § Rail Merger until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Art culture inspired by MTR
Hi, I believe we should also touch the topic of Mosaic Tiles in each MTR station (and provide local photos) as it plays a significant role on some of the artworks and inspiration for artists. We should also touch base on other temporary art exhibition in the MTR station.
How Hong Kong's MTR stations got their colours | Cathay (cathaypacific.com)
Hong Kong Secret Art: MTR Artworks You've Never Noticed (thebeat.asia) Clcherry (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.