Talk:MTR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luckyluke (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 14 March 2007 (→‎Discussion: - comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

Featured articleMTR is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 11, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
January 1, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 17, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:FAOL Template:0.5 held

Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss the article MTR and MTR Corporation Limited. Past discussions can be found within this and this archive . Enjoy! =)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Image crowding

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but there's a lot of image crowding in the article. I feel that use of too many images breaks the flow of article. Images are supplimentary and this article is almost half filled with them. I find similar problems will other Mass Transit articles as well. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all pics are rightly aligned. I don't they will break the flow of reading. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But aren't there too many of them. Just because many images are available, doesn't mean that all should be added. I feel that they do break the flow but for not so obvious reasons. While the reader is going through the article, he/she will see a filmstrip on the right continuously going through. So the reaser will have to stop from time to time and see+read a set of images, then continue reading where left. In my opinion, the images should not appear any more often than once every two paragraphs so that it doesn't appear crowded. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, I agree that some of the pictures are really useless in supplementing and illustrating the content. For example, the picture which shows the station name "Central" and the picture showing a guy talking on cellphone can be deleted. Any other suggestions? --Spring Dennis 06:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through the article in detail. I came here as after raising the issue of image crowding at an FAC discussion, I was told that the article has been modelled on this one. I feel that only those images should remain that genuinely help the reader understand the topic better. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery and all free but not very useful images may be showcased at the commons. Since I don't know much about this topic and don't have much time either, I will assume good faith towards the editors here and hope that only the relevant images are kept. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if there is no objections within these few days, I would start removing pictures showing only the station names and walls, and reducing the number of pictures which are used to show the crowd of passengers. --Spring Dennis 07:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that some pictures should be removed. Among those are the ones featuring:
  • Kwun Tong station
  • Diamond Hill station
  • Prince Edward station
  • Central Station sign
  • mobile phone user
The reason why I support removing several of the pictures featuring different stations is because of the ones listed above, none of them really showcased information that is significant or relevant (most of them depict only the signs or the heads of passengers). On the other hand, pictures such as the ones featuring Hong Kong station and its facilities gives a sense of the layout and structure of MTR stations. Of course, what I think is relevant may be different from what you think is relevant. This is just my two cents on what should be removed. :) --Funnykidrian 05:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of spare photos from commons, so we can afford to be picky. Be bold and replace whichever you think suits the article better. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A model for all MTR station article

I have no idea where should I discuss this issue, and so I put it here.


There aren't any unique style for station articles of MTR. For example, in the Exit part, there are some different presentation:

For station structures, most stations have their Exits and Platforms seperated, but for Central (MTR) and Yau Tong (MTR), the style is different.

There are information panals in Quarry Bay (MTR) and Tai Koo (MTR), which is not found in other stations.

The colouring of bus routes and minibus routes should be unique as most Island Line stations do.

And lastly I hope we could choose a station article for the model of other station articles. Peterwhy 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very disorganised I have to say, two articles have infoboxes, the rest don't, two articles have exits and platforms in one section, the rest don't. I propose we have a simplified infobox for all stations. It is easier that way. It shows how MTR articles are badly presented and maintained. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the look of the Exits and Bus Routes of most station articles, so that they look the same. Wheelchair symbols have been added to denote step free access.

As for there being infoboxes only at Quarry Bay and Tai Koo, a probable reason is that the person who wrote them lived in that neighbourhood, and hence can get detailed information. My take is that he should either research the geography of EACH and EVERY station so as to add the infoboxes, or leave out the infoboxes altogether.

Finally, I disagree with him using a template in Quarry Bay and Tai Koo, since he is just making things too complicated. It's a headache searching through the article full of codes. --Kylohk 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I found these:
Peterwhy 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better if we use the chinese handwriting to be the photos under the station name in the table? --Mmlcs36 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail gauge

In the infobox, I removed the reference to 'narrow gauge' and replaced it with 'near standard gauge'. Let me explain why I did this: While 1432 mm is indeed 3 mm narrower than standard gauge, it is much closer to standard gauge in size than typical narrow gauge systems which are frequently 1067 mm. I also felt it made more sense to label it 'near standard gauge' because MTR trains can in fact run on 1435 mm gauge, albeit at reduced speed. Furthermore, the article for Railway gauge already lists MTR under standard gauge and the Narrow gauge page mentions early that "in practice, most presently existing narrow gauge railways have gauges of 3 ft 6 in (1067 mm) or less" so I felt it also made sense for consistency. -- Stephen Mok 09:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious IP Address

I have noticed that some anonymous user with several similar IP addresses has been adding loads of negative comments in the article. Therefore, I have reverted it. Anyone know who might he be? I am sure that saying things like "MTR is a moneymaking organization" and other false information like "the Shatin Central Link" will be built by the KCR are all wrong. (KCR was awarded the rights to build this line) Source: LegCO

Oh, and a further point, one of the IP addresses has already been caught vandalizing another page. So, there really is a reason for concern.

--Kylohk 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MTR is a moneymaking organization" Isn't it? Well don't tell the shareholders! ;) --Stephen Mok 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCL is really being built by KCR stupid! Go to kcrc.com You are just ignorant that's all.

Could you stop putting WP:POV statements into the article? enochlau (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange Station

Should I post the following image right above the TiuKengLeng diagram in the Station amenities section? I realize that it is similar, but it does provide for a simpler explanation as well as a universal interchange design. Herenthere 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my diagram is a little harder accessible then yours. But you diagram has one mistake that there is only one suggested (inverse) interchange direction for each platform in STATION 2. I suggest that it's time to expand both article interchange station and cross-platform interchange with your diagram. MTR actually has the greatest use of CPI over the world's rapid transits. -- Sameboat - 同舟 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advice acknowledged, I'll try to use the image in other articles. But how is there only one interchange direction? Isn't it impossible to have trains from different lines going in opposite directions for two consecutive stations? Herenthere 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Chinese version of CPI article which mainly written by me if you understand Chinese. The MTR only recommends 1 interchange direction for each platform of the CPI. Because except for Lai King station, the CPI of MTR is usually composed of 2 continuous stations for a 3-directional interchange service. 1 line usually end as a terminus in one of the "same directional interchange"(Tseun Wan line in Central; Kwun Tong line in Tiu Keng Leng; Tweung Kwan O line in North Point). Communter-flow is divided in to different platform in this system. For example, no commuter in Tsuen Wan line towards Tsuen Wan from Mongkok station would interchange to Kwan Tong line in Prince Edward station. Also no coummuter in Tsueng Kwan O line towards Po Lam from Yau Tong station would interchange to Kwun Tong line in Tiu Keng Leng station, because its the terminus of Kwun Tong Line. -- Sameboat - 同舟 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing, you diagram should show that the station 1 is the terminus of green line and the track for reversing/connecting the train of green line. -- Sameboat - 同舟 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That really would be the perfect interchange. :) But let's say using my diagram, traveling on Line B at station 2. If the recommended interchange were only from Line A to Line B; then that would mean Line B passengers would have to wait until the next station and change levels of the station. What I was trying to do was represent the most direct change so that you wouldn't have to go up/down in the station.Herenthere 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have misunderstood your diagram. I thought that it implied the CPI system of Prince Edward - Mong Kok.

File:Mtr-interchange.png


The so-called "perfect CPI system" involves the expectation of the need of CPI. In a 3-directional interchange system as shown in my Yau Tong - Tiu Keng Leng CPI diagram, there are 4 interchange possibilities. So that means they need 4 island platforms and each in charge of 1 CPI direction. In a 4-directional interchange, there are 8 possibilities. Just think about the Lai King station, its platforms are actually in charge of 2 opposite CPI direction of each platform.

Redirect to Mass Transit Railway

I think that this article should be redirected to Mass Transit Railway so that it will not be confused with other similar words/abbreviations. Also, instead of creating another page for disambiguation, the page MTR can be used. Acs4b 08:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been called MTR, especially since the Mass Transit Railway Corporation was renamed MTR Corporation Limited and traded in the stock market. Mass Transit Railway now only exists in the ordinance, and probably nowhere else. — Instantnood 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A change in the company name dosent mean it has an effect on the name of the system. The "SMRT" in SMRT Corporation once stood for "Singapore Mass Rapid Transit" too, but the MRT still stands for "Mass Rapid Transit" today, so this is nothing extraordinary. Which "ordinance" are you refering to, btw?--Huaiwei 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to move Part Deux 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the system is called MTR, however WP:NAME states that acronyms should never be used unless they're used exclusively. Therefor, I have requested that this page be moved to Mass Transit Railway, -- Selmo (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "support" or "oppose" followed by your reason and then ~~~~

Support

  • Support rename to MTR (metro). This is based on the statement above that Mass Transit Railway is not the correct name and a need to dab this title and move the dab page here. It would be hard to justify a rail system in one country as the primary use of a TLA page. Vegaswikian 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, possibly to MTR (Hong Kong) or MTR Railway (the official website occasionally uses this term) instead thou. Irregardless of final choice, "MTR" alone simply is not feasible, unless there is evidence that New Yorkers [1], Linux programmers [2], foodies [3], audio buffs [4], etc, etc, etc, are all thinking of the HK rail system when they see "MTR".--Huaiwei 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I came here to close this discussion. However the consensus seems to be to keep the article as it is and that seems like the wrong conclusion to me. So instead I'm leaving a comment here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) couldn't be clearer, "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form". MTR should be a disambig and this page should be MTR (Hong Kong) or similar - the article can still use the term MTR. Mark83 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • oppose. As the reason Instantnood has stated. Also Hong Kong English speakers rarely address the system in full name or "metro". It is appropriate to remain the title in its well-known acronym MTR -- Sameboat - 同舟 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no other disambiguation of MTR in wikipedia. If someone is searching for MTR, they are most likely searching for the metro system. And besides, from reading the first paragraph, you would get an idea of that it is a metro. Herenthere 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Compared to the other stuff on MTR (disambiguation), this one probably wins out in terms of importance by far. enochlau (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are they any hard evidence to demonstrate this? Notable amongst rail buffs and in HK, maybe, but the entire world?--Huaiwei 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to argue with you, but yes, my assertion is rather unprovable but if you just look at the other entries on the disambiguation page, they really don't stand out to me as being as important on a relative scale. enochlau (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not an argument, but a request for facts. I can form entirely different opinions from you by looking at that disambiguation page, but that is entirely besides the point, for its not merely about what I think. I am merely asking if you have any evidence to show obvious notability of the HK subway over all other possible uses of this acronym anywhere in the world.--Huaiwei 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How exactly does that scale rank the Museum of Television and Radio commonly call MTR? Vegaswikian 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Enochlau. Willkm 09:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until another disambiguation of MTR is needed, which is not yet. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no one refers MTR by its full name. Even the MTR Corporation itself. No other disambiguation of MTR yet on Wikipedia, I agree with Enochlau. Terence Ong 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have evidence to show that "no one", including MTR Corporation, refers to MTR by its full name? If there is a lack of other articles called MTR, why the existance of MTR (disambiguation) then?--Huaiwei 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Searching the website of South China Morning Post. The result for MTR of 20th January 2007 straightly addresses the acronym. For Mass Transit Railway, zero result. -- Sameboat - 同舟 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's quite an interesting way of denying the existance of a phrase. Have you tried typing "Mass Transit Railway" in google and discover how many of the search results refers to the HK subway system?--Huaiwei 11:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? Not all in the first few pages refer to the HK rapid transit system. The Mass Transit Railway name was only used in the past, not anymore. Terence Ong 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No one insists all entries have to refer to the HK system. On the other hand, you clearly claimed no one is doing so. Logically, this means not a single google search entry on "Mass Transit Railway" should refer to the HK system. As for your claim that the full name was "used only in the past", could you provide sources to verify it?--Huaiwei 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • MTR Corporation is the name of the operating company. Mass Transit Railway is apparently the name of the metro system. Given that MTR has other uses, the question here really should be is MTR the primary usage. Asking this question about this article is likely to produce a biased result since the other uses are probably not going to see this notice. Vegaswikian 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have wondered the same thing about MTR. Same disagreement with the New York City Subway. Its official page is titled, "New York City Subway", and the operating corporation has its own page, "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)". I personally like MTR-simple, short. But I think that if it is renamed, then it should be like MTR (Mass Transit Railway). BTW, ppl I've spoken to in HK say it is, "Day-teet" or "Day ha teet low". Try using those Chinese words in EN wikipedia! :) Herenthere 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you were to stick brackets after it, it would probably be something like MTR (subway) - the stuff in brackets is the generic category that it belongs to, e.g. John Smith (politician). enochlau (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the correct name is? Can someone who opposes the move or knows the details state what the name of the system is or even if the system has a name. Yes MTR is used, but what it the name? From the company page they seem to say they run several rail service lines. Vegaswikian 01:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "rail service lines"? MTR is the name for the encompassing network of those "lines" including the AEL, KTL, TWL, TCL, IsL, and TKOL. MTR stands for Mass Transit Railway; it is available in the first sentence of the article. Herenthere (Talk) 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you opposing the rename? This is an acronym that is very common. It is not clear that there is a world wide primary use. In fact in California and New York it is clear that it has a very different meaning that is clearly the primary use. Use the full name for the article since it can not be proven to be the primary use. I hope that the closing admin is able to weight the points made here and not just count the 'votes'. Those opposed even agree that the name is a Chinese one without a good English translation. Maybe the name should be "Day ha teet low"? Since MTR is a made up name not commonly used by the locals, how can it be the primary use? This seems to be the position expressed in some of the oppose votes. Vegaswikian 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although "day teet" is the official Chinese name for it, the English name for it in Hong Kong is MTR. The name MTR is commonly used by businesses in HK to describe promotions, directions, etc. True, it is a Chinese name, but the purpose of a title of an encyclopedic entry is to provide the most concise description of an object. MTR is used more often as a name rather than Mass Transit Railway in any stories/forums/news etc. Besides, convention is MTR. Someone from Hong Kong or London would find it odd why an article would be dedicated to the New York City Subway since a subway in England or HK is an underground walkway. Changing MTR to any other form would be like changing the NYC subway to something like the New York City Underground Railway-> long. Herenthere (Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the primary difference between the NY and HK systems is that one is using the article name New York City Subway, while the other is MTR. We are not comparing apples with apples here.--Huaiwei 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am a local and English speakers use MTR, not day teet or Mass Transit Railway(I can never remember or wish to remember the long form.) MythSearchertalk 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I kinda met Chinese speakers in HK, but, yea same point. Perhaps we should leave this renaming issue for a later time, when more ppl can join in. Herenthere (Talk) 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am hardly surprised by this observation, and you will note no one is denying the fact that the term "MTR" is widely used in HK to refer to the railway system. But what remains unverified, is whether it is widely used on a global scale, such that it can monopolise the said acronym over all other possible meanings of the said term.--Huaiwei 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism today

For any regulars, I reported it to AIV here... in case you want to follow up or watch those IPs. thanks. - Denny 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community events

"MTR Hello Kitty Dream Wedding" and "MTR HONG KONG Race Walking" are worth mentioned in the article. — HenryLi (Talk) 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

Not sure how many of you interested editors are aware, but the article is under FAR right now. Please help make sure it retains its FA status. Wikipedia:Featured article review/MTR. And there seems to be some problems that editors participating on the FAR are noticing that I can't seem to see.

  1. No spaces between numbers and their units of measure.
  2. Non-standardised date formats - some are using the "yyyy-mm-dd" format while others are using the "month day, year" format.
  3. Hyphens and/or dashes are incorrectly used per WP:DASH.
  4. Lines with colours are used outside of the "Network" section.

I can't seem to find these problems but they have been mentioned on the FAR. Please help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of the problems are corrected already. --Raphaelmak 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move request, agian

Here's another attempt to get consensus to move the page. Here are some replies to some arguments used:

  • MTR is short and simple. - Yes, maybe it is, but WP:NAME prefers spelled-out titles unless the acronym is used exclusively (eg laser) and that the spelled-out title could be considered surprising.
  • This is more common than anything else listed on the dab page. - It is common that people living in different parts of the world or from different fields to believe that an acronym is most commonly applied to a specific item. For example, because I live in Canada, I generally associate CBC with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Although it might seem to me that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the rest of the world, CBC isn't the most common.

My proposed compromise is that the page be moved to MTR (rapid transit system) as this distinguishes this use of the acronym from the rest and still reflects the use in Hong Kong. — Selmo (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by a comment and then ~~~~

Support

  • Support. The current setup may "be fine" for those looking for other meanings to the abbreviation MTR, but this continues to violate wikipedia policy, and forces all users to artificially believe that the term leans more to one entity than it really do. That this is the third time a move request is made is telling enough. Note practically all oppose votes in this and previous move requests are HKers, or have a keen interest in that city, and all fail to demonstrate the fact that the rail network in HK does not have exclusive use of this abbreviation. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and popular votes most not be seen as a valid reason to circumvent wikipedia guidelines or policies.--Huaiwei 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in the article states that the railway has exclusive use of the term "MTR". So there's no need to demonstrate this. That's why there's an ambig link at the top. And there is disagreement on how often the term is used to refer to what. We're also supposed to do things by consensus at WP - that's a great WP policy we shouldn't violate. At best, we've basically came to no-consensus. And this third poll even seems to be heading toward supermajority. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read the relevant policies and guidelines, having a "ambig link at the top" is used when the exclusivity or widespread, global-usage of an abbreviation is already proven. This continued disability to prove notability means the current setup remains inappriopriate. The onus is on those insisting on monopolising a term to prove its notability. Concensus building is critical to wikipedia, but one should not take it literally to mean majority views count in all aspects of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works, for Wikipedia is strictly not a democracy. A supermajority proven to violate wikipedia policy and having their views overturned is not a violation of Concensus policy. Users keen to keep the status quo will have to go beyond merely optaining a "no concensus" result, because a violation of guidelines can easily overrule it, as is clearly evident here.--Huaiwei 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the burden of proof is on the editors who want to move an article. But all we've reached, at best, is no consensus on whether or not the current name is justified. Consensus on the current name and consensus on if the current name violates WP policy goes hand-in-hand. You may say that the current naming is against policy, but apparently there are plenty of others who disagree. And WP:Disambiguation for disambig top links specifically states: "A user searching for a particular term might not expect the article that appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed." The current setup of this article is perfectly valid. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please cite the relevant policy or guideline which supports your reasoning concerning burden of proof. The rest of your comments dont quite make sense, and it hints to me that you are attempting to tie in other policies and guidelines to claim their violation to support your stand. It dosent work this way. And please be mindful that "plenty of others disagreeing with policy" dosent change that policy. In fact, how many of them are actually capable of convincing us that no policy or guideline has been breached? Conveniently ignoring the concerns raised dosent mean disagreement. The citation you quote form WP:Disambiguation dosent address the issue at hand at all. It merely explains why WP:Disambiguation exists, and that is for articles which already demonstrate common usage. Not every user who checks up BBC may be expecting the British broadcaster to appear on screen, hence the existance of the top links, but its proven that the vast majority of user around the world do, hence the British broadcaster's use of the abbreviation "BBC". That is what the citation is actually saying (and not saying). Are you able to apply the same to MTR?--Huaiwei 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While it is true that the current title of the MTR article may imply that Wikipedia is favouring a point of view of another. This is hardly the case. Just because this article has gone through three move/renaming requests does not support this premise, as Huaiwei has implied. The first move request in December 2005 was initiated on the basis that MTR did not adhere to WP:NAME, the second move request in January 2007 per WP:NAME again, and finally months later after the second discussion, in March 2007 we are discussing it again per WP:NAME, again. The closure of two former requested moves with a consensus to not move the current MTR article to another name clearly shows that WP:NAME is not a viable policy to be cited in initiating another move - yet it is continually cited. Granted, the requested moves are initiated by different editors in both instances and that process is important. However, there are times where policies can be ignored where adherence to policy does not benefit the Wikipedia project - and this appears to be one of those times. The Ignore Rule Policies is furthermore supported by WP:SNOWBALL, where it states that "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." It would appear that this third process of undergoing another move/renaming request is one of those instances. It is quite clear though arguable that the consensus is either going to be not moving/renaming the current article (as indicated and supported by previous discussions) or no consensus achieved at all.
      However, the above reasons may still not satisfy some editors - so in addition to my oppose rationale below here is some additional support. Per naming conflicts policy and convention referring to the section on "How to make a choice among controversial names" when applying the the three key principles. MTR meets all three initial principles as being common use of a name takes precedence, the common name does not take precedence over the official name, and MTR is the term used by the official name to describe itself. Furthermore under guidelines to determine common or official usage: MTR is the name that is most commonly used in English and it is used by the subject to describe itself. My argument is supported by a Google, CNN, BBC News search results test where the MTR in question dominates the search results (Keyword MTR). Four out of the first ten Google search result hits are referring to the MTR this article is about.
      It is also interesting to note that the article BAA remains named BAA while a quick Google search returns a highly varied result listing in possible uses of the acronym BAA, moreso varied that the results returned through MTR.
      In addition per WP:NCON, it is stated that the onus is on the editor proposing the move to prove why the move should be made - not those editors opposing the move. Luke! 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose, per my opinion in the last poll done. MTR is the name used officially by the government and the corporation itself. Terence Ong 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? One of the listed articles on the dab page is a major city. It may be the official name, but it dosen't make it the most common usage. — Selmo (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which one's is the major city? I have clicked on every link on the MTR (dab) page and none of them are directly about a major city. The closest is the link to Montreal, Quebec; however, this is just a reference to Amtrak reservations system code MTR being assigned to Montreal and not actually a widely-used abbreviation for Montreal. Luke! 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Montreal is seldom referred as MTR. Terence Ong 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current use of a disambiguation link is fine. It resolves the problem that other people might be looking for a different "MTR". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not resolve the problem of readers being sent to the wrong article. A dab should be used when the likelihood of being sent to the wrong article is high. Vegaswikian 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which I disagree would be high. But readers searching for "MTR" can certainly participate in this poll in disagreement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the response would vary by region. If you are in HK, your answer would be different than if you were in NYC. That's why the dab is so reasonable in this case. You need a very strong consensus to not have a dab for any 3 character article name. Vegaswikian 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per HongQiGong. Additionally, per Instanthood from the previous discussion - where MTR is being used exclusively except in the one piece of government legislation creating the former public organization, MTR. Luke! 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and I propose that we speedily close this because the last poll wasn't that long ago. Nothing has changed since then. enochlau (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above reasons given, plus that there is no significant ambiguation problem. --Raphaelmak 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This poll is against the consensus two months ago. The consensus unlikely changes in two months and it is not appropriate to raise similar polls again and again. Ref.: Wikipedia:Consensus — HenryLi (Talk) 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Profile of voters in past and current move request

Move Supporters HK Origin/interest Move Opponents HK Origin/interest
Move Request #1
Huaiwei No Instantnood Yes
Shinjiman Yes
Knowledge Seeker No
Enochlau Yes
Mcy jerry Yes
Terence Ong Somewhat
Novacatz Yes
Mailer Diablo No
Xavier114fch Yes
Novacatz Yes
Mailer Diablo No
Xavier114fch Yes
Move Request #2
Selmo No Sameboat Yes
Vegaswikian No Herenthere Yes
Huaiwei No enochlau Yes
Mark83 No Willkm Unclear
Insanephantom Yes
Terence Ong Somewhat
Move Request #3
Selmo No Terence Ong Somewhat
Huaiwei No HongQiGong Yes
Luckyluke Yes
enochlau Yes
Raphaelmak Yes
HenryLi Yes

A very telling table, isnt it? ;)--Huaiwei 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Somewhat"? Meaning? I'm not of any HK origin. Terence Ong 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "somewhat" mean? A person who is not born in Hong Kong but is living in Hong Kong? Please explain. --Raphaelmak 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading reads "HK Origin/interest". You dont have to be born in HK, or even ever step foot in there to be interested in the place. And that interest can result in a rather warped viewpoint. Anyway, I note the keen interest in my little table here. :D--Huaiwei 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact... I'm just a bit puzzled with "somewhat" being used. I hope that the table be changed for "HK Origin/interest" status to be either "Yes" or "No", not that kind of something between like "somewhat". --Raphaelmak 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no scientific means to measure someone's interest in a place, so unless you can cite such an instrument which can do just that, it is unlikely anyone can pigeonhole every single soul into a "yes" or "no" category. On top of that, there is no way I can establish the origins of some individuals, unless they declare it in their user page or their contributions is evident in their edit histories. I respect the basic privacy of individuals not to prod too much into their backgrounds. If you are so interested, you are most welcome to do that. But again, why this keen interested to remove all grey classifications?--Huaiwei 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is that you've grouped "origins" together with "interest in". Someone being from HK doesn't necessarily mean he is interested in HK-related topics. Take a quick glance at the contrib history of some of those who have been against the move. They edit about as many HK-related articles as you yourself do. So how does that fit into whatever point you're trying to make with the table? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And why should that be a problem? The category includes those who are either from HK, or are keenly interested in it. The later takes into account those who were from HK descent (but has never set foot there), and those who are keenly interested in its development, which may not actually reflect in the number of page edits. You dont need to be from HK, and be interested in it to be classified as such. As already mentioned, the number of edits is only considered in grey areas, which I tend to err on the safe side by marking them yellow if its not a clear-cut case. What other "problems" could you find from this table, or is the revealation too uncomfortable for you so much so that you have to nit-pick at it? ;)--Huaiwei 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's just a little too convenient that you can arbitrarily assign someone to being "interested" in HK-related topics, or not "interested", while at the same time unilaterally dictating that the number of edits in such articles do not reflect interest, and so do not include that information in your handy little table. Your criteria for what is considered "interested" in HK-related topics seems to be whether or not an editor supports the article move. Very nice indeed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this table helpful at all? It doesn't show anything that is useful to the renaming/move discussion at hand. It merely profiles editors who have been involved in the move discussions and groups them into subjective categories. This discussion should be based on the guidelines and policies not the editors background. I find that this table fails to assume good faith in other editors by not giving them the benefit of the doubt. It assumes that just because of a classification, that editor will side one way in this discussion. Luke! 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MTR&oldid=114976881"