Talk:MTR: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 92: Line 92:


::I went through the edit history and found that you actually did.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTR&diff=1048272498&oldid=1048093452] 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. [[Special:Contributions/124.217.188.171|124.217.188.171]] ([[User talk:124.217.188.171|talk]]) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
::I went through the edit history and found that you actually did.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTR&diff=1048272498&oldid=1048093452] 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. [[Special:Contributions/124.217.188.171|124.217.188.171]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/124.217.188.171|124.217.188.171]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/124.217.188.171|124.217.188.171]] ([[User talk:124.217.188.171|talk]]) 06:38, 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. [[Special:Contributions/124.217.188.171|124.217.188.171]] ([[User talk:124.217.188.171|talk]]) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:19, 11 October 2021

Former featured articleMTR 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 11, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
January 1, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 17, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 5, 2007Featured article reviewKept
May 9, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 12, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... 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

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) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

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]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

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

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) 14:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]
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]