Talk:MTR: Difference between revisions

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2004 Peer review Reviewed January 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 5, 2007 Featured article review Kept May 9, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 12, 2014 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2021 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2014. Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Trains: Rapid transit C‑class High‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hong Kong: Transport C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hong Kong Transport workgroup (assessed as High-importance). Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (22) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (289) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,039) Image needed (348) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,447) • Stub-Class articles (6,730) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (389) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,340) Template:WP1.0 Template:Vital article

This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

• PRDIR logo without text.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted to FA status way back in 2005, almost 15 years ago now as of 2020. Since then, the article has gone through many changes that has diminished its status as a FA, or even as a GA. It's too cluttered, contains outdated or unsourced information, and formatting issues at some sections. Not to mention the controversies section which contains material bordering on undue weight and recentism from questionable sources. The talk page over the past few years is mostly dead with bots notifying of copyrighted images being removed or modifying external links. Telsho (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• MTR (logo with text).svg
• MTR logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• PRDIR logo without text.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Citobun: These names don't exist anywhere else apart from this talk page. 203.218.155.184 (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find these names? 220.246.91.139 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]